…no questions from the peanut gallery
November 7th, 2007 – 5:40 PM by Bob von SternbergWhen Michelle Obama hit Minnesota Wednesday afternoon, acting as First Surrogate for her husband, she lavished her attention and smiles on a couple of dozen students and staffers at the Hope Commiunity in south Minneapolis. She chatted about community organizing, empowerment, that kind of thing, for more than an hour.
But no, her spokeswoman said, no time to take questions from the gaggle of journalists standing by and watching the photo op. A shame, in a way, because she can be candid to a fault, like the time recently when she said Hillary Clinton was a polarizing figure and questioned the so-called inevitability of her nomination. “Sometimes we wear the same suit even if it’s got holes in it,” she said. “We need a new suit, not just a new tie or new pants.”
Typical self-centered journalist quibble, right? Not exactly, because it brought to mind the hermetic bubbles that both Barack Obama and Clinton have sealed themselves in for months on the campaign trail, a phenomenon examined this week by the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus.
Would a little give-and-take on the campaign trail be such a terrible thing? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear the candidates unlimber and expand beyond the 30-second sound bite? (Which, ironically enough, Michelle Obama mocked during her Minneapolis visit.)
13 Responses to "…no questions from the peanut gallery"
If one of the candidates unleashed a five or ten minute discussion of an issue, how would it be recounted in the newspaper? How would your coverage of such a discussion differ from a debate-sized 30-second soundbite? My guess it would be little different — a salient quote would be plucked out of the 10 minutes and the rest would be then summarized in a couple of additional sentences. Then, the rest of the story would talk about the candidate’s fundraising or their standing in the polls and how such a visit would help them (or not). I haven’t seen a whole lot of appetite in this paper or most others for analysis not related to the horserace.
I mean, just look at how you covered the Michelle Obama visit that prompted this blog entry. Granted, she’s not the candidate, but the story in the paper has no discussion of what she talked about for an hour, and this blog entry dismisses what she talked about as “organizing, empowerment, that kind of thing”.
One could argue that “organizing, empowerment, that kind of thing” is in fact the very heart of what the Obama campaign is trying to sell, but the coverage of the event ignores that to talk about whether or not the Obama campaign thinks Hillary is “inevitable” — gee, I wonder what they’re going to say about that — and how much $$ they raised.
Why not talk to the people who were at the event and see if the talk changed their opinion? Did the message resonate? What about Obama does/doesn’t appeal to them?
I have to go with von Sternberg on this one.
I think it’s a shame that a bunch of journalists trot all the way down there to listen to *any* candidate spokesperson talk for more than an hour, and then get told that they aren’t going to be getting any answers to their questions.
These people are reporters, not stenographers–if you expect them to show up at your public appearances in furtherance of a candidacy, you should be prepared to answer some questions, for crying out loud. You’ve got to expect that of journalists, right? The president has to deal with that; I think it’s fair to ask Ms. Obama or any campaign spokesperson to do the same–if she wants to address political matters and expects journalists to cover that.
I agree they should be willing to answer questions. I just think the media doesn’t often understand itself very well. So we want candidates to go beyond 30-second soundbites? If they do, then they get the Gore treatment (one need only look at McGrath’s post after Gore won the Nobel for the “esteem” at which the media holds him) — they get treated as “know-it-alls” and are deemed “not likable”. That’s how we get folks like our current “authentic” “guy you’d like to have a beer with” President.
Wait a minute! Wasn’t her stopover political campaigning for her husband? If one is going to speak up for a candidate, they need to answer questions so the rest of us can read their responses. Or more succinctly put; if yo’re not going to answer questions, shut up and stay home.
I don’t agree with you, Joseph. Michele is not the candidate. if a candidate refused to answer questions at a photo op, that could be considered not only inconsiderate but inexcusable. What can you ask a candidate’s wife? Who does her hair? Certainly not what the candidate thinks about this or that. Ask him! Or listen to his already out-there answers. We know why she’s there. Take her picture & go home. The reporters went on the chance she would answer their questions. she’s not committed to. Barack is.
Patrice–
I don’t think *any* of the reporters who wanted to ask her questions would have had the gall to ask her “where she does her hair done.” That’s not the kind of question they wanted ask her–they wanted to ask serious and newsworthy questions on subjects that she’s well qualified to answer: the progress of the campaign, her opinions on the politics of her husband’s opponents–all kinds of legit questions for anyone deeply involved in the campaign.
She’s out there campaigning, she’s clearly an intelligent person who feels qualified to speak on important issues of public concern (look at the subjects she actually did talk about at this meeting.)
It sends the wrong message for her to campaign for her husband but refuse to take any questions–it makes it look as if Obama and the campaign don’t trust Ms. Obama to speak her mind, to deviate from a prepared script; it makes it look as if they’re afraid she’ll embarrass them.
You don’t need reporters to report an event like this, if all you’re going to do is stick to “your prepared script”–it’s not news and you could save everyone the trouble of covering it simply by forwarding a copy of the remarks to the newspaper offices.
So yes, if you’re a spouse campaigning and talking about important issues–show some courage and character and take the questions!
Bill, you do have a point. But if I remember right, Michelle has spoken her mind before, & in no uncertain terms. In fact i understand she’s a little too forward in her opinions. Maybe she actually WAS asked not to take questions here. Maybe she needs to be reined in a bit. Do you remember Teresa Heinz Kerry? Another lady who is intelligent & well-qualified to speak. She must have cost John more than a few votes. Could it be that somebody on the management side of this team is being extra cautious? I don’t know. Do you?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound snippy,but I don’t know if you are a member of the press who might know the answer.
I wouldn’t want either one (Hillary or Mrs. Obama) in office of any kind, they may be smart but not smart enough for me. The more they speak the more that resinates!
Patrice–
Your last post is probably right, but that’s only my guess as a layman. The campaign has probably instructed her to rein it in, to avoid her remarks getting the campaign in hot water.
No that doesn’t “sound snippy” when you suggest that and ask if I know otherwise. My view is only my guess, I certainly don’t have any knowledge of what’s going on inside the Obama campaign. But if that is your guess (about the campaign telling her not to answer questions from reporters), it is also mine.
But even if it a wise “political move” to do that for fear of making a Heinz-Kerry impression, it’s not a very respectable move to send her out on the campaign trail to discuss serious issues and then at the same time tell her to “stonewall” if the press wants to ask her questions. That’s not how it works (if you’re campaigning you take questions and answer diplomatically–if you won’t, it makes your side look weak, like you’re concealing what this key campaigner really think.)
Like Heinz-Kerry or Hillary in the 90s or Bill Clinton in the present election–Ms. Obama’s a “serious character”, not just a stay-at-home Mamie Eisenhower type of spouse. You talk issues, you represent the campaign–the press should and will call you out for “stonewalling” when question time comes around.
I think you’re right, Bill. None of us knows exactly what goes on inside campaigns. I remember potential first ladies who said exactly that ~ gee, I dunno, fellas - was it Laura, perhaps? Didn’t leave a very good impression. I wonder really why Michelle wouldn’t take questions. I wish someone had asked her that! I’ll be keeping a close watch on her after this, just to see if the rest of the press is treated like the locals. If she can’t be trusted to answer to our press, maybe she should just stay home & bake cookies.
Rita - how “smart” a candidate do you desire (or require)?
I see that the 2 candidates you disqualify for not being “smart enough” are both Democrats.
What is your political affiliation, and how do you feel about our current President’s qualifications?
I guess I’m looking for your standards.
Like anyone from the press would actually ask a question of substance. They would just ask another negatively phrased question, which can only be answered with a defensive answer… “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
The media just want to get their sound bite to twist and turn into a headline so they can sell more ad space.