Scratching Obama's Teflon

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 3, 2008 9:59 AM

During a campaign stop in Ohio last week, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Barack Obama about what he called "an attempt by conservatives and Republicans to paint you as unpatriotic."

Tapper's litany: "That you didn't put your hand over your heart during the national anthem, that you no longer wear an American flag on your lapel pin, that you met with some former members of the Weather Underground, and now they are questioning your wife's comments when she said she hasn't been proud of the U.S. until just recently."

Obama dismissed the criticism as "nonsense." But did the exchange mark the end of a long period in which the media have gone easy on the man who could all but clinch the Democratic nomination in tomorrow's primaries? Are the media going to change the environment that prompted Kristen Wiig, playing a CNN anchor on "Saturday Night Live," to declare that she and her colleagues "are in the tank for Obama"?

The Illinois senator still hasn't faced the sort of negative onslaught that generally envelops presidential front-runners. But after a year of defying the laws of journalistic gravity, he is being brought back to earth.

Some of this involves recycled reporting that didn't get much traction the first time around. Within the last two weeks, ABC's "World News" has done a story on Obama voting "present" nearly 130 times as an Illinois legislator, two months after that information was on the New York Times front page. "NBC Nightly News" has followed up a two-week-old Times piece about Obama compromising on Senate legislation affecting a nuclear energy company that contributed to his campaign. A "CBS Evening News" segment reviewed a series of negative points -- Obama's controversial pastor, his ties to indicted fundraiser Tony Rezko, voting present, the nuclear contributions and the lack of a flag pin.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton maintains the media have "consistently examined both his public and personal record." Burton calls suggestions of soft treatment "a false premise that is advocated by a couple of members of the media and the Clinton campaign. The investigative teams at the networks, major national news organizations and the Chicago papers would take great issue with the notion they haven't examined Barack Obama's record." The Chicago newspapers have been the most aggressive by far.

Some conservative commentators, after years of obsessing over Hillary Clinton, are now training their fire on Obama. Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham, appearing at a John McCain event, generated a wave of coverage last week by challenging the media to "peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama."

In his Times column, Bill Kristol picked up on Obama's comment in October that he views wearing a flag pin as a substitute for true patriotism. "Obama's unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin," Kristol declared.

Erick Erickson, editor of the blog RedState, wrote that voters should be wary of "the liberal anti-gun former cokehead whose feminist wife hates America."

Michelle Obama became talk-show fodder when she said on Feb. 18 that "for the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of my country." But for the following week, there was no mention of the flap in a Washington Post or New York Times news story, although the Los Angeles Times jumped on the controversy.

There was also little pickup when the Politico reported that a decade ago, Obama visited Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers, the 1960s radicals whose Weather Underground group was involved in two dozen bombings. And the issue of Obama's dealings with Rezko all but vanished after a brief flurry until the runup to his trial, which begins today.

Similarly, there was scant media mention of Louis Farrakhan's support for Obama until Tim Russert challenged the senator to repudiate that support at last week's MSNBC debate -- making Russert the target of some liberal bloggers who say he went overboard on the issue.

Would Clinton have skated as easily if she were found to have visited radicals tied to violence? Or bought land from an indicted businessman, as in the Rezko case? Or if the pastor of her church had talked about "this racist United States of America," as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who heads Obama's church, has? That is hard to imagine.

Clinton's complaints about media imbalance are buttressed by a new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs. From Dec. 16 through Feb. 19, it says, the three network newscasts aired reports that were 84 percent positive for Obama and 53 percent positive for Clinton. She scored higher on evaluations of policy and public performance, but that amounted to only 10 percent of the coverage.

On Friday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters there was a "staggering" gap between the Rezko coverage and the volume of questions he fielded about her indicted fundraiser, Norman Hsu. Yet Clinton's team angered the press again by not telling traveling reporters in Texas that she was flying to New York to appear on "SNL"--intelligence they had to learn from Obama aides.

Still, after a year in which Obama was hailed as the second coming of JFK, will his Teflon coating now be scratched? Tapper says he asked Obama about his patriotism "because obviously Democratic voters think the nominee should be someone who is able to withstand Republican conservative attacks." He says he noticed such criticism spreading on talk radio, cable shows and blogs, and "to act as if we can ignore other parts of the media because we're snobby about it . . . then we're irrelevant, because we're missing part of the story.

"It's very difficult to argue that the level of scrutiny of Barack Obama has been the same as the level of scrutiny of other candidates."

But, Tapper says, holding Obama accountable is difficult because he speaks to reporters infrequently.

RedState's Erickson says the media haven't really focused on Obama's positions. "I've spent the last six months accumulating stuff from his voting record. This is an opportunity to define him," he says.

Erickson concedes that his "cokehead" crack was a distraction, saying he would not join the ranks of partisan commentators who "write in such a hyperbolic way that it destroys their credibility. It's going to be the template, as with the Clinton-haters, for the Obama-haters to report on the salacious and the rumors."

But the media don't need to descend into Rumorland to give a candidate a hard time. After Russert raised the issue of Obama's pastor at the debate, CNN did a piece on the senator's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an admirer of Farrakhan. (Obama says they disagree on some issues.) The Washington Post, followed by the Times, ran a story on Obama trying to reassure Jewish leaders about his commitment to Israel, a controversy that had been brewing for months.

One overlooked aspect of Obama's success may be his skill at defusing hostile media inquiries. He preempted critics by calling his dealings with Rezko a "boneheaded mistake." He has talked about the danger of spending "too much time arguing with the refs," says a new book by Chicago reporter David Mendell. The question is whether Obama can resist that temptation if journalists start tackling him more often.

So Much for Diplomacy

Sam Zell, the Chicago businessman who now owns the Tribune Co., recently hurled an obscenity at a photographer for one of his papers, the Orlando Sentinel. Zell apologized, and editors at the Los Angeles Times, the largest Tribune paper, issued a memo saying it was all right for the boss to curse but not the employees.

Some staffers in the company's Washington bureau certainly felt like uttering expletives -- and one female staffer was left in tears -- after a Zell visit last week. The new boss complained about the size of the Times's 47-person contingent, saying that far fewer reporters were covering California's Orange County and perhaps the numbers should be reversed.

Doyle McManus, the Times bureau chief, tried to reassure his demoralized staff afterward. In a memo, McManus said Zell's comments "shouldn't be taken literally. . . . Sam Zell likes to say his role is to throw bombs and shake people up." On that point, he succeeded.

Cruelty to Animals

California's North County Times has fired an editor with a warped sense of humor. As a joke, the unnamed editor mucked with a wire-service account of a news conference on pet-spaying at which a Los Angeles City Council member "held a kitten," changing the verb to "strangled." The paper apologized for the "terrible mistake."

Furthermore . . .

And here's a good item:

The Associated Press reported that "Rep. Jon Porter, D-Nev. . . . sounded downright Republican by echoing the GOP's calls for the House to get back to debating the president's surveillance program." Maybe that's because he is a Republican. A correction followed.

Michelle Obama is getting all kinds of coverage:

"It is no longer Bill Clinton, husband of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who is drawing the headlines," says the Chicago Tribune. "This is, in part, by design, following a spate of comments by the former president that may have hurt his wife's candidacy more than his own continuing appeal on the campaign trail helped.

"It is now Michelle Obama who, with her own comments in recent weeks, may also have created more controversy than comfort for her husband's candidacy."

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi warns: "If Michelle Obama isn't careful, she could get the Hillary Clinton treatment, circa 1992 . . .

"Right now, Barack Obama's wife is as much a media favorite as her husband, the presidential candidate. Her predebate advice to Obama -- 'Feel, don't think' -- is portrayed as political genius. A Newsweek cover story describes a smart, well-grounded woman, with an inspirational life story who is 'neither Stepford booster nor surrogate campaign manager.' Her independence and outspokenness are viewed as virtues, at least for now.

"That could change, as Republicans search for any antidote to Obama fever."

And a big Michelle piece in the New Yorker:

"Obama seems like an iconoclast precisely because she's normal (the norm for a candidate's wife having been defined, in the past, as nonworking, white, and pious about the democratic process).

"Obama is also cool in the other sense of the word; her tastes, references, and vocabulary--'freaky,' '24/7,' 'got my back,' 'American Idol,' Judge Mathis--if not exactly edgy, are recognizable, which, for a political spouse, makes them seem radical."

Rush Limbaugh alert! Frank Rich on John McCain: "Some Democrats do admire and like him. So does Jon Stewart, and so do many liberal editorial boards and card-carrying hacks in the mainstream American press. So, in fact, do many at The Times, including myself." Rich then proceeds to trash McCain's position on the war.

The Obama campaign pushes back hard against a Politico story about whether Catholic voters are backing Obama. A top spokesman for the candidate challenges the premise of the story, telling the online publication: "I was not questioning anyone's credentials or trying to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk."

Bill Richardson says he's not endorsing, but who could he have been talking about, other than Obama, when he told Bob Schieffer that "whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee"?

Meanwhile, Is Hillary's team selling soap that the media won't buy? Joe Klein thinks so:

"As we rode down to Waco from Fort Worth on the Clinton bus this noon, various cellphones had the Clinton-spinners press conference-call on speaker. It was intolerable, like being forced into a small room with that obnoxious Cincinnati talk radio host. It went on for an hour and a half, and I was beginning to wonder if there was a hostage situation. The big news, the new spin was that Obama was going to have to prove his front-runnerdom by winning all 4 primaries next week. This sort of spin is . . . so 4 cycles ago. Do Penn and Wolfson etc. actually think this has any effect beyond making them seem stupid and petty?"

Gee, wasn't it Bill Clinton who was saying his wife had to win Texas and Ohio?

Are we headed for a big Democratic win this fall? The Standard cites a Pew survey that "finds reason for McCain optimism. First, the poll reveals public attitudes about the war in Iraq have turned more positive. '47% now favor keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation there has stabilized, the highest percentage expressing this view in well more than a year,' the Pew poll reports.

"The report also highlights some potential Democratic base fissures that could handicap Senator Obama. 'Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee,' the poll shows--double the percent of white Democratic support McCain would get in a Clinton-McCain race. Indeed, most parts of Senator Clinton's base (seniors, lower-income, less-educated Democrats) would support McCain at higher levels if Obama were the nominee.

"It also reveals a majority of Americans (56 percent) believe Senator Obama has not provided enough information about his policies and plans. Only 37 percent say Senator McCain has not provided enough information."

Of course, Obama will pick off his share of independents, and even some Republicans.

Townhall columnist Matt Lewis also talks up McCain:

"I've long argued that John McCain will have an easier time taking on Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton has. This is not to say it will be a cake walk. However, the difference is that McCain will have a much easier time drawing a sharper contrast.

"Obama has essentially framed the Democratic primary debate in such a way as to ensure the only obvious contrasts are the ones that favor him . . .

"Of course, this will not work against McCain. Obama will be forced to defend his leftist ideology, such as wanting to socialize healthcare, precipitously withdrawing from Iraq, etc. And based on the early skirmishes the two candidates have had, it is clear that McCain gets under Obama's skin in a way that Hillary never did, or perhaps, never could."

Carpetbagger's Steve Benen complains about the lack of coverage of McCain accepting the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee:

"McCain hadn't just cozied up to a radical mega-church evangelist, he'd teamed up with a notorious anti-Catholic extremist . . .

"Louis Farrakhan had a few kind words to say about Barack Obama. In response, Obama repudiated Farrakhan, made no effort to reach out to him (formally or informally), and said he wanted nothing to do with the Nation of Islam leader. Nevertheless, campaign reporters covered Farrakhan's 'endorsement' with great enthusiasm, and Obama was pressed on the 'issue' at this week's debate.

"Which leads to an interesting contrast. While Obama repudiated Farrakhan, McCain dropped everything to appear alongside Hagee. While Obama made no effort to reach out to Farrakhan, McCain sought Hagee's support and said he was 'very honored' to accept it. While Obama said he wanted nothing to do with Farrakhan, McCain said he hoped to capitalize on Hagee's endorsement to curry favor with the evangelical community."

Firedog's Jane Hamsher adds that "Hagee was, if you'll remember, the guy who said that Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge for a gay pride parade."

What are they talking about? The New York Times gave the matter two whole paragraphs at the end of a story Saturday.

In that flap about an Obama aide allegedly assuring Canadian officials his man will go easy on NAFTA, CTV stands by the story:

"The Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

"Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago."

Sounds like a non-denial denial.

Obama always seems so cool, so unruffled by reporters, but Todd Spivak, who was writing for an Illinois paper three years ago, says the state lawmaker called and yelled at him over a story:

"The article began, 'It can be painful to hear Ivy League-bred Barack Obama talk jive.'

"Obama told me he doesn't speak jive, that he doesn't say the words 'homeboy' or 'peeps.'

"It seemed so silly; I thought for sure he was joking. He wasn't.

"He said the black legislators I cited in the story were off-base and that they couldn't have gotten the bills passed without him.

"I started to speak, and he shouted me down.

"He said he liked the other story I wrote.

"I asked if there was anything factually inaccurate about the latest story.

"He repeated that his former colleagues couldn't have passed the bills without him.

"He asked why I wrote this story, then cut me off when I started to answer.

"He said he should have been given a chance to respond.

"I told him I had requested an interview through his communications director.

"He said I should have called his cell phone.

"I reminded him that he had asked me months ago to stop calling his cell phone because of his busier schedule.

"He said again that I should have called his cell phone."