Biased Against Barack?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:50 AM

For months, Barack Obama got the kind of glowing media coverage that most candidates could only fantasize about.

But now that he's a full-fledged presidential candidate, he's starting to get nicked a bit. This was utterly predictable, and is part of the process. You don't get to be a party's nominee without an intensive media audit, especially if you haven't been a national figure who has been vetted in the past.

Can this get to be unfair? Sure. There was a time when Howard Dean was getting whacked by a negative story a day, although he had some self-inflicted wounds as well. But Obama is not exactly getting pummeled at this early stage.

Liberal pundits, however, are pretty steamed about the Illinois senator's recent coverage. Let me give you two examples before we hear from them.

There is this AP dispatch by Nedra Pickler:

"The voices are growing louder asking the question: Is Barack Obama all style and little substance? The freshman Illinois senator began his campaign facing the perception that he lacks the experience to be president, especially compared to rivals with decades of work on foreign and domestic policy. So far, he's done little to challenge it. He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.

"He has focused instead on motivating his impressive following with a call for unity and change in Washington. But along with the attention comes a hunger to hear more about what he's about.

" 'The Obama campaign has been smart about recognizing that voters don't want to be lost in the valley of policy only,' said Democratic consultant Jenny Backus. 'But it's a gap that's going to have to be filled as he goes on.'

"Obama has a lot of time to fill in the blanks between now and Election Day, and certainly many other candidates are short on details this early in the race. But they don't have such a barrier to prove they are qualified to be president.

"At a union forum Tuesday, Obama sought to answer the questions, arguing that he has experience as a state legislator, community organizer and constitutional law professor. He also cited his work in the Senate on nuclear proliferation. 'I am confident in my ability to lead,' Obama told the crowd."

Okay, the piece is framed around an arguable thesis--Obama has been light on policy specifics--but the first two people quoted are a Democratic strategist and Barack himself. Obama's spokesman and another Democratic consultant are also quoted.

I linked earlier this week to the other piece, a lengthy Chicago Tribune examination of Obama's childhood, based on more than 40 interviews, that found discrepancies with his autobiography "Dreams of My Father." One involved an old friend with whom Obama says he had long talks about racism, but the man says their discussions were about Obama's inner turmoil and not about race. Another was Obama's recollection of being deeply affected, at age 9, by Life magazine photos of a black man who used chemical lighteners, in an effort to appear white, that burned off much of his skin. Turns out Life never published such an article. Obama said it might have been Ebony or another magazine; Ebony could not find such a piece.

Talking Points columnist Greg Sargent rips the Associated Press story, excerpts of which have been e-mailed around by the Republican National Committee:

"There's no question that we should want to see some more policy detail out of this guy, and his experience, or lack of it, is a completely valid topic. My objection to the AP piece is the gratuitousness of its central question, as well as the clear factual omissions that were necessary to shore up its central thesis. There's little question that it's precisely this gratuitousness that makes the piece so in sync with the message the RNC wants to deliver."

HuffPoster R.J. Eskow has a broader indictment:

"The press has now tagged all three leading Democratic Presidential candidates with labels as unfair as those given to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, without laying much of a glove on the Republicans in the race.

"Sen. Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate who has worked at the all-important (and often overlooked) community level, and now has state and national experience. Still they call him a 'lightweight,' although he has more government experience than Abe Lincoln did when he was elected. (Or than Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani do -- but you haven't heard them called lightweights, have you?)

"Hillary Clinton has campaigned with a wry wit and a relaxed presence at the podium, but she's been labeled grim. And now John Edwards is being called heartless for continuing the work that gives meaning to his life, as well as to his wife's."

Has "the press" in general called Obama a lightweight, or simply pointed out that he has not provided a lot of policy specifics and talked about how inspiring people is more important? Hillary has many strengths as a candidate, but I don't think "relaxed" is the first word that comes to mind. And other than a handful of columnists, have the media depicted Edwards as "heartless"? Hasn't the vast majority of the coverage been sympathetic?

Salon's Glenn Greenwald, in a piece mainly devoted to criticizing the Politico, chides a WashPost columnist for picking up on the Chicago Trib account:

"Look what is happening. The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, one of the most predictable and easily manipulated 'liberal' pundits in the country, has already dutifully scampered for the bait, pronouncing: 'This tendency to manipulate facts may bear watching in Obama. (After all, we hardly know him.)' So Cohen, even while praising Obama, starts infecting the public discourse with the type of slippery, odorous innuendo about his character which lingers and can never really be disproven. With almost a full year before the first primary vote, Obama has already, in essence, claimed to have invented the Internet, to be the source of inspiration for Love Story, and to have been in Cambodia during Christmas.

"It is inevitable that the Beltway elite are going to end up hating Obama for exactly the same reason they hated Howard Dean -- because by all appearances (which, in my view, are still incomplete and uncertain), Obama is not one of them, does not want to be one of them, and is actually going to run his campaign by attacking the toxic, cynical, corrupt attributes which define how they operate."

Well, maybe. At the moment, I don't know anyone who hates Obama. As for Cohen, who has a long history of being tough on his own side, he also likened Obama's memory lapse (if that's what it was) to one of his own, and called Obama's book "an astounding display of a supple, first-class mind."

By the way, the Politico, which Greenwald suggests is shilling for the GOP, has a big headline today: " Republicans Fear 2008 Meltdown."

On the war front, Bush is ratcheting up his rhetoric:

"With both houses of Congress now firmly on record in favor of withdrawing from Iraq," the New York Times says, "President Bush vowed Wednesday not to negotiate a timetable with Democrats, and a confrontation appeared inevitable as each side prepared to blame the other for delays in providing money for the war.

" 'Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely,' " Mr. Bush told an audience of cattlemen and ranchers. 'That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.' "

The Democrats stood their ground, the Times added: "Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said Mr. Bush should 'calm down with the threats,' and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said his impression was that Mr. Bush 'doesn't want anything other than a confrontation.' "

The L.A. Times peers into the future: "When it comes, Bush's veto is expected to leave the two sides accusing each other of perfidy: The president will accuse Congress of cutting off funds for troops in the middle of the battlefield, and Democratic leaders in Congress will accuse Bush of stubbornly ignoring the will of the American people, the true needs of the troops, and the raw power of common sense."

Dick Polman finds great significance in the two senators who provided the margin of victory for the war-funding restrictions--Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson--hailing from Nebraska:

"This is a state, after all, where half the voters are registered Republicans, and only 34 percent are registered Democrats; where Bush won 66 percent of the vote in 2004, and 62 percent of the vote in 2000; and where, in presidential elections going back half a century, Republican candidates have averaged 61.1 percent of the vote -- the highest percentage of any state, with the exception of Utah's 61.6. Indeed, Nebraskans have supported GOP candidates in every presidential election going back 70 years, with the sole exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964."

Quick--check the Slate Gonzo-Meter! National Review is calling for the ouster of the attorney general:

"We do not need more evidence, however, to reach a conclusion about the suitability of Alberto Gonzales for the leadership of the Department of Justice. While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence. His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department. His deputy, Paul McNulty, insulted the fired prosecutors by claiming that they had been asked to resign for 'performance-related issues.' But many of them received good reviews, and none of them said he was told about any disappointment with his performance. If Justice wanted to clear them out to make way for new blood, or to find attorneys who shared their prosecutorial priorities, that would have been perfectly legitimate. By saying what he did, McNulty guaranteed that the fired attorneys would lash out in the press.

"Gonzales's latest tactic has been to concede that improper motives may have played a role in the firings, but to blame his underlings for any misconduct and to pledge to get to the bottom of it. What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start."

Wow--the Gonzo-Meter is up to 82.5 percent!

Kyle Sampson testifies today, and the AP already has his leaked testimony: "Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee."

Hmm . . . What happened to "performance-related" reasons?

And there's this: "Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales endured blunt criticism Tuesday from federal prosecutors who questioned the firings of eight United States attorneys, complained that the dismissals had undermined morale and expressed broader grievances about his leadership, according to people briefed on the discussion."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff disagrees:

"Gonzales' management style is not what I want to see from the Attorney General. But Gonzales reports to President Bush, not conservative writers. If Gonzales has told the truth and if he still has Bush's confidence, then, in the absence of evidence that stepping down would assist the president politically, I see no reason why he should resign."

A new poll, this one from CBS, says Americans support John Edwards's decision to stay in the race by a 2-1 margin.

Another piece on Bill and Hill:

"The possibility of Bill Clinton returning to the White House he left six years ago raises some questions that are far touchier than whether Americans are ready for a 'first gentleman.' As an ex-president, how much influence would he have in his wife's administration? Will memories of the Monica Lewinsky scandal haunt Hillary Clinton's campaign and drive away voters? What's the status of the Clintons' marriage -- and does it matter?"

It certainly matters to journalists!

"In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 70% of Americans say Bill Clinton will do more good than harm for his wife's campaign."

Has Bob Barr "grown" since leaving office?

"Bob Barr, who as a Georgia congressman authored a successful amendment that blocked D.C. from implementing a medical marijuana initiative, has switched sides and become a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project, says the Politico.

"But that doesn't mean he has become a bong-ripping hippie. He isn't pro-drug, he said, just against government intrusion."

And government intrusion was okay when he was a Republican congressman?

Yet another controversy at the L.A. Times, as Kim Masters points out in Slate:

"Now we have an NBC press release announcing another prestigious association for the Times. We'll pass along the first couple of paragraphs verbatim:

" Candidates for NBC's 'The Apprentice: Los Angeles' try their hand at advertising this week by creating a newspaper supplement for The Los Angeles Times promoting a new brand of mouthwash on Sunday, April 1 (10-11 p.m. ET).

" This week's task is delivered at The Los Angeles Times' printing facility, where Trump is joined by his daughter, Ivanka, and two executives from Smartmouth, a new brand of mouthwash. The candidates are asked to design, photograph and create a supplement for The Los Angeles Times advertising a new product that keeps breath fresh. While one team adopts a sexier approach for the supplement, the other trusts science. The losers face Trump in the boardroom, and the winners get a gourmet dinner they'll never forget prepared by some very special surprise guests.

"It's tempting to wonder if the gourmet dinner is goose cooked by the executives who thought this was a good idea . . . What possible benefit the Times could have hoped to reap lending its facilities and name to a faltering NBC-Universal show is not clear. A spokeswoman for the paper says she doesn't see any issue because no money exchanged hands."