I think it's called "keeping them in their place." By making access a rare thing, it'll become a precious commodity once the Obama administration becomes a reality. Then you can use the threat of cutting it off as a way of keeping these bozos in line.

I thought it was Hillary that never spoke to her traveling press. This is news that a candidate isn't always accessible?

Maybe part of the undercurrent of press hostility toward the Clintons is the constant stream of BS spin that you have to listen to from their camp if you are a journalist. People might, on some level, just get sick of it. Just a guess.

I actually thought that this was encouraging - it fits right in with the rest of the Obama "brand." Running a different sort of campaign is more than just a slogan apparently. Might work, might not. But given the sort of press that he is getting, it seems like it has been pretty effective, so far. And it makes me feel that I'm less likely to be being sold a bill of goods here.

Also, the stuff discussed in the article is distinct from having a rapid response team. Obama seems fine on that front.

My god, I thought one of the nice things about reading blogs is that we didn't have to read navel-gazing masturbatory whining from the mainstream press.

I hate primaries.

Look, I don't like Howie Kutz either, but I agree with Kevin that this article was genuinely interesting.

Not to psychoanalyze too deeply here, but I wonder if it has something to do with his community organizer roots. He's made a big deal throughout the campaign about how that history has informed his approach to politics and how he believes it's essential to mobilize the public in support of the cause. His dislike of dealing personally with the press may reflect that same thinking: why deal with catty intermediaries when it's easier to go directly and make his case to the people?

It's a novel idea and it does seem to be working pretty well for now (it hasn't negatively impacted his press coverage much, by all appearances), though I wonder if it's a sustainable model. Still, whatever his level of personal access to the press, I don't think it speaks poorly of his overall press operation. His media team seems effective enough at pushing strategic spin; as noted, he's got a good rapid response team (we're constantly hearing about the conference calls being organized with the candidate, strategists, and surrogates); and, unlike the Clinton campaign, the whole press operation doesn't seem to be leaking like the Titanic at every opportunity.

Since when has positive press correlated with access?

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Still, the general election is going to be a slugfest, and it's a bad sign if Obama's press operation hasn't been honed to deal with it.

Kevin, I think you're right this does sound bad, but I think you're wrong that Obama cannot get around it. One of the great things about Obama is his charisma. His marvelous oratory skills allow him to communicate directly to the people and get around the antagonism the press has of him.
Right now, the liberal media has been biased toward Billary because they're the liberal establishment candidate. The liberal media never misses a chance to praise Billary and mock Obama. But Obama's insurgency campaign has allowed him to run roughshod over the liberal media despite its persistent hostility. I expect Obama will be able to continue this extraordinary path even in the general election.

jimBOB: I think it's called "keeping them in their place." By making access a rare thing, it'll become a precious commodity once the Obama administration becomes a reality. Then you can use the threat of cutting it off as a way of keeping these bozos in line.

Well, it worked for Shrub for the first four years.

Obama can get away with it now, because the media is so contemptous of the Clinton campaign. However, if Clinton is discarded, the kid gloves will be discarded too. Just a guess.

Harry, you have it slightly wrong. It's the Hillary campaign who is contemptuous of the press. Until NH, she could barely deign to speak to them.

Wow, he's gotten this kind of fawning coverage even though the reporters feel stiffed? What would they be writing about him if they felt good about him?

The press' naked contempt of Hillary Clinton is one of the least professional episodes in political coverage that I can remember. Every four years I remember why I have so little respect for the political media--it's because they have so little respect for what they're supposed to do.

"Well, it worked for Shrub for the first four years."-Devil Dog

However, Bush did not run his campaign in the same manner. He allowed almost as much access as McCain.

I understand McCain allows free booze on his bus. Drunk journalists make happy pliant journalists. Perhaps this is the one Republican "idea" the Democratic candidates should embrace. ;-)

"Harry, you have it slightly wrong. It's the Hillary campaign who is contemptuous of the press. Until NH, she could barely deign to speak to them."-Kathy

What planet have you been living on the past 17 years?

"I understand McCain allows free booze on his bus. Drunk journalists make happy pliant journalists. Perhaps this is the one Republican "idea" the Democratic candidates should embrace. ;-)"

Why stop with alcohol? Image the coverage a candidate would get if they passed out ecstasy to the press. Secretly, of course.

Well, just look at what happened a couple of weeks ago, when ABC reported that he was being 'contentious' and 'angry', when the video clearly showed otherwise?

The press loves to blow things out of proportion, and to take quotes out of context. Especially in a situation where there is no video evidence, it's hard for the candidate to fight back. I think it's rather smart of Obama to avoid putting himself in these situations.

Wow, Al has been watching a completely different universe of media coverage than I have if he thinks the press has been tough on Obama and easy on Hillary. I see the exact opposite. Obama has been the candidate of whom no criticism is allowed. And that ranges from the MSM (Joe, Chris, Mika, Tucker, et al) to the lefty blogs (Arianna, Kos readers).

Whether Obama is open to the media or not, they seem to think he can do no wrong.

This is kind of obvious, isn't it? Reagan established the principle nearly 30 years ago: limit your access to the press. It lets you control the message of the day, rather than allowing the press to set it, and it avoids gaffes. Since then, I think only McCain has gotten real mileage from unfettered press access.

As to the absence of high-level spinners with the press corps... well, like you say, it hasn't hurt him much so far.

I distinctly remember an NPR article on All Things Considered on October 21, 2007 regarding how Clinton was giving the least amount of access.

So the question is, did Obama adopt a new policy, has Clinton, or is this the press just scrambling for some new hook?

The Clinton Administration - initially, emphasized transparency, communication with the press. Resulting coverage - an unmitigated nightmare of negative coverage, bordering on libel/slander.

The Bush Administration - tightly controlled press availability throughout his campaign and presidency. Resulting coverage - overwhelmingly positive and willing to transmit his spin. Though he has recently become less popular, the negative press has lagged his dropping popularity with the public.

What lesson do we learn?

That was Fake Al, btw.

Howevermuch it sucks, Obama better be careful here -- if the press decides to turn on him because they feel slighted, I'm not sure all the charisma in the world can overcome a shift in tone from regular press outlets. I also remember reading somewhere recently that Obama does not take many questions at campaign events (unlike the now 'improved' brand of Hillary who is just itching to know what we the voters 'feel').

Listen, he's got to find a way to deal with this. Right now he seems most comfortable in these big soaring speeches where he is the most impressive politician in a long time --- BUT he seems oddly deficient in the one-on-one courting aspect of political behavior, whether it's with voters or with the press. Is he too cerebral for that just like he's supposedly too cerebral to be a decent debater (he's awful in them). Ok, it 'sucks' to have to sell your ideas constantly against pushback, but ya gotta do it. My fear about Obama is that he somehow thinks he's going to just speechify his way to success --- as if merely by listening to him, all his opponents will be moved, recgonize his genius and agree with him.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. So like it or not, he's going to have to learn to be a bit less aloof, a bit more available and a lot more human. Listen, it would totally make my gorge rise on a daily basis to have to mollify the spoiled brats that make up the press corps, but even if you hate doing it, a smart politician figures out that having them on your side is better than having them snipe at you. Yeah, I know, 'it's not fair' that you have to do this. Just grow up, Barack.

Drum,

Obama's whole candidacy is built around creating illusions, and avoiding scrutiny because he'd be found lacking. It is an elaborate game of "smoke and mirrors" that the media has fallen for. You, too, fell for it and got "off the bus" the other day. I hope you are not complaining because that is the "monster" that the media have created: The "untouchable candidate." At this rate, the Dem party is setting itself up for a rude awakening if they do the unthinkable and nominate Obama, whose record and resume is so thin that he'd already been laughed off the stage he had been a first-term white Senator from Illinois. He is benefiting from the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and has been given a pass on shady dealings, policy positions, and claims that would have attracted vigorous scrutiny for any other candidate not named Obama.

dschungu, so I guess you don't like Obama. What does that have to do with press access?

Why avoid a press that loves you? Maybe because he's a phony. As a moderate conservative I just love the fact that you idiot liberals have fallen in love with this guy - one morning too late you're gonna wake up and realize you've gotten hitched to the pretty girl for all the wrong reasons.

Kevin,

It's actually a rather clever posture, at least for the time being. Obama is focused on the formats which show him to maximal advantage - in particular, the inspirational address delivered to an enthusiastic audience. Reporters following the campaign, who need to file daily reports (or at times, several times a day) are left to report what he's just said in a carefully honed speech, how the rapturous audience responded, or how the latest endorser sang his praises. McCain, by contrast, is a decent stump-speaker, but there's nothing unprecedented or newsworthy about his appearances. Reporters love process stories, they love off-the-record chats, and they love gaggles in which the candidate may say something unexpected. That's particularly true of print reporters, who relish these chances to write about something that was said but not captured on camera. So yeah, I'm sure they're frustrated. But for now, the strategy is keeping them on the reservation.

That said, it can't work forever. But Hillary's campaign is instructive in this regard. She ran an incredibly tight ship when she was the prohibitive favorite, forcing the media to remain on message. When the Obama phenomena caught up with her, she opened up to the press, in what Ambinder labels "detente" and was instantly embraced. Not only that, but her new openness became a favorable process story.

So I say it's great for Obama to do this for as long as it works for him, and he can always switch and reap the rewards of access when its time.

"Obama answered a few questions, but reporters are generally placed on mute after they speak so there can be no follow-up."

Oh no, he's trying to control his press coverage!

"Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists,"

Probably because he is. Probably because he has good reason to be.

"The result: He has never had to learn press relations as a survival skill,"

That is very disturbing, because clearly he sucks at getting good press coverage. I'm also worried he is "naive," "green," and "wet behind the ears." Sure, he's won one caucus, tied in NH, won the most delegates in Nevada, and won more votes that all other candidate combined in South Carolina, but anyone can get lucky.

It's one thing to be able to deliver a rousing speech that moves millions. Some of the worst characters in history have had that ability.

It's another thing to be able to relate to relate on a personal level. Obama does not have it. Read his book. Narcissist. Only views others as secondary or tertiary figures in his production. Narcissists can only relate when they are seeking to manipulate. Like being great at schmoozing the people with the big bucks. But understanding the lives of others is beyond their ken and of no interest to them.

The whole Obamamania from the silly fawning press is pure faddism.

Kevin - did you stop to consider Howie's habit of drinking heavily before he writes long columns? Or so I'm told. Maybe this article is just frustration from Howie as he watches the Repub candidates do a death spiral before his eyes.

My god, I thought one of the nice things about reading blogs is that we didn't have to read navel-gazing masturbatory whining from the mainstream press.

This site has been the very essence of NGMW for several weeks. And I have willingly participated in the political circle jerk.

Why is this topic even worthy of comment?

Kevin, are you so jaded that all you can do is discuss the relative negatives of the main Democratic contenders? I've been as guilty of obsessing with the horserace crap as anyone, but it's getting old.

You seem to want to support Hillary, but you don't really come across as being enthusiastic about her. Instead, you keep posting superficial factoids about Obama's supposed weaknesses.

Will you come to your senses after Hillary seals the deal on Super Tuesday?

When is all of this hemming and hawing going to stop? When you can support a clear winner and not have to worry about (GASP) being wrong?

Again I say, let's talk about the Super Bowl. It's far more meaningful than this BS.

Supporters can try to find a positive reason regarding access or message control, but perhaps a reason Obama doesn't allow much access to the press, or stages 'conversations' with people at his rallies rather than taking reasonably long sets of audience questions (as Edwards does regularly) is that he really is a bit less able to speak on the issues extemporaneously as opposed to giving a hell of a stemwinding speech. Both Hillary and Edwards come across better in debates or on the television talk shows. Because I am an Edwards supporter, based on my preference for his progressive policies, I am now basically in the position of watching how the battle between Clinton and Obama (both of whom I consider candidates who will be weaker than Edwards would have been in the general election) play out. Obama has great strengths, but he has many chinks in his armor that have not been tested at this point.

I am surprised at how uninformed many of you posting here are. The press LOVED George Bush in 2000 because he was constantly schmoozing and giving them stupid nicknames. Remember all the ludicrous talk about who would be better to have a beer with. I was appalled everytime I heard this, because it was clearly implying that that would make him a better president and no one challenged this stupidity. In contrast, Gore was aloof and that was part of the reason they said they hated him. I even heard some journalists say that Bush gave them better food and that was why he got favorable treatment, as if that was a perfectly reasonable response from "professionals". The media was the biggest factor in Gore's defeat because they kept repeating dishonest Republican talking points about him while giving Bush's faults and bald-faced lies a pass. And MANY Democrats bought the spin. Even though Bush disappointed the media, they were not a lot better about Kerry.
There is nothing remotely objective about our political press. There is a reason that some of them even call themselves things like the kids from Beltway High. It is time that the American public wake up to the fact before they call another election for us.

seriously...weve had about 10 stories this week about reasons why Obama just isnt "cut out for" running for office.. its enough now. if you dont like him and dont want him as a president, just be honest about your feelings.. stop pretending you have fears about him not being savvy enough with the press, or quick enough with his responses, or any of the other ridiculous disqualifiers thats been mentioned in the past week...these are all are assinine as the "he isnt black enough" comments from last summer/fall.

When Obama wins he could harness Chrissy's exploding head as an alternative energy source.

Why doesn't Obama want to talk to the press?

Because, if the debates are any sign of his capabilities at extemporaneous speech, he's pretty wretched at it.

I sometimes wonder if Obama may not enjoy the most overrated reputation in the history of modern American politics. (I'll tell you -- I don't even get the claims to "eloquence" -- put his speeches side by side with either Lincoln's or MLK's, and you'll see what I mean.) And overinflated reputations can collapse with a simple pinprick -- and for Obama it's crucial that he stay in the bubble until after all votes are cast.

Of course, it's inconceivable that such a reputation will last 4 long years in the WH, where one faces actually adverse circumstances that will try one's appeal to the voters. I'm sure that he will try to find some way of casting all such criticism as mere racial innuendo, as he has done so well so far. And I'm sure that Kevin and Josh Marshall and all the other fine, fiercely independent bloggers will reach for the vapors on cue when he does so.

But somehow I just doubt that the average American voter is going to buy it. I have the slightest feeling that they are going to get awfully tired, then nauseated, by that cheap little trick.

if you dont like him and dont want him as a president, just be honest about your feelings

Yes. This blog would be much improved if Kevin would take that advice.

Don't worry, the Kool Kids don't read your blog anyway. Only us "old" farts (did I really hear The Clash on an elevator yesterday?)

Enough already. Let's just hope that the inevitable poor sportspersonship on the part of the supporters of Hillary and Obama following the securing of enough delegates doesn't last for weeks. I think it would have a negative effect on turnout. For all of the talk about how well Democrats handle internal debate, we sure are mucking this up. The GOP must be delighted at the pettiness of the infighting. Hopefully it's limited to us wankers in the blogosphere.

If a candidate is not "talking" to the press, maybe the press should be reading the position papers, analyzing and asking questions about them?

The press is always looking for something new that is an easy story rather than do the hard intellectual slogging that good reporting demands.

"Still, the general election is going to be a slugfest, and it's a bad sign if Obama's press operation hasn't been honed to deal with it."

Really Kevin? Have you just drunk the Conservative Columnist Cool-Aid or the Clinton Cool-Aid. Nothing in that article suggests the conclusion you reach. In fact, I'd say that his press operation has been pretty effective given how quickly and strongly they have responded to Bill Clinton's lies and half-truths.

The article is interesting in that Obama clearly prefers to keep the press at arms length but I hardly see why that is a bad thing. There's a certain cowboy sitting in the oval office who has the same profile and I don't think an argument can be made that it hurt his election chances.

Now, maybe you can say that this is a bad thing for democracy or some flim-flam like that. But suggesting that Obama's dislike for getting cozy with the press corp is a weakness is a vacant claim.

You know, leaving aside whatever nastiness has emerged over the last few weeks, I'd be happy with either Obama or Clinton as the nominee. I'm more indifferent than most, but even if my feelings change, like Mark Kleiman said, no matter who it is, I'm going to work my tail off to get them elected. I hope others feel the same. What's more, I hope that Obama and Clinton don't hate each other, as some reports suggest. Because if that's the case, I worry that it might make it that much harder to Obama to pick up the phone and call Clinton to ask how to play hardball and how to deal with the press if he's the nominee and having a rough time.

Obama would be well served if he followed McCain's example. If you shower the media with access, booze, and "straight talk", they'll fluff you to no end.

Shorter Howard Kurtz/media storyline: Everyone would be awesome if they were John McCain.

You know, leaving aside whatever nastiness has emerged over the last few weeks, I'd be happy with either Obama or Clinton as the nominee. I'm more indifferent than most, but even if my feelings change, like Mark Kleiman said, no matter who it is, I'm going to work my tail off to get them elected. I hope others feel the same.

Absolutely not, sir! Absolutely not!

I can't, for the life of me, figure out what liberals see in Obama. He's going to surrender to the terrorists and raise taxes--goodbye prosperity, hello Taliban at the shopping mall with suicide belts and the bur'qaa for every woman 7-107. Do you want to live with the Obamafication of America? Do you want everything to be Obamafied and for everything to be swept up by the Obamamentum? As some fellows once sang, Phony Obamamania has bitten the dust.

Now is not the time to surrender to Islamic Fundamentalism. If anything, this country needs a Christian President, and that's why I am reluctantly supporting Romney at this point. If you want someone to hoist aloft the sword and lead a crusade against the incursion of Islamic Fundamentalism, you need a Mormon to do it, I guess.

I am not sure what happened to Rudy. I want my $27,500 back, that's for certain.

omg... thats hilarious, norman rogers...

um...you're not really serious, right?

you gave nearly 30K to rudy? (snicker)

Kevin,
Thank you for getting back to what you've been doing - exposing the vulnerabilities of Obama's brain washing campaign.

If you fall into lock step like so many of the other pundits, I will stop reading you.

Well Kevin, I've been annoyed with Obama for the last few months, and this is the first positive thing I've heard out of his operation. Keep those blood sucking pieces of crap in the press in their place.

Kevin...the best of all political pundits, Eric Severeid, never told us who he voted for, ever. There is a reason for that related to pundit credibility. Now you have stepped right into it and the results are predictable: some people will hate you and others will adore you. Why can pundits be pundits and not insert themselves actively into the choice?

I have a window into an alternative universe, in which Kurtz wrote a column describing Obama's "relentless courting of the press, schmoozing with reporters, etc, etc."

And Kevin found that "peculiar and disturbing."

All you have to do is watch one 24 news cycle to see why a candidate with any sense would keep the media at arm's length. If you can't stomach that watch an episode of Jon Stewart's Daily show. Our mentally challenged press corp makes the general public look like Mensa. All the press wants to do is instigate conflict and magnify any minor disagreement into a cage match. Why would someone attempting to run an uplifting and inspirational campaign, which Obama has proven he can do, subject themselves to the whims of these idiots. The web gives us a chance to bypass the press and hear from the candidates directly and we have access to thoughtful analysis from alternate media, and media form outside the country. I couldn't care less what most of the US press has to say or have any interest in the inane questions they deem appropriate to ask. Our political system is a mess, our press is largely to blame.

Kevin, apart from all the tactical considerations folks have discussed above, you've completely missed the point on this one.

Go back and read some Glenn Greenwald: THE MEDIA THINKS POLITICS IS LIKE HIGH SCHOOL.

Obama is the popular new kid in the school, and the high school newspaper nerds are whining "why won't he hang out and share some of his coolness with us?"

One of the main themes of his campaign is "We have to change the way we do business in Washington". He's not one of the good old boys and we have to stop sucking up the pundits. When it suits him I've seen him do one on one interviews. But sucking up to the reporters on the bus would undercut his message.

you gave nearly 30K to rudy?

No, that would be illegal. What I did was bundle that amount from donors directed by me to give money to Guiliani indirectly. I have five brothers and we work the phones during the fundraising periods and max everything out per quarter. We skirt the laws, but the FEC never bothers with us. Nothing is ever done in my own name. That's why you can't find much about me at places such as OpenSecrets.org.

Our mentally challenged press corp makes the general public look like Mensa.

While working the hotels in New Hampshire last December, I encountered several members of the media and had a sit-down with them and participated in a group discussion about the Guiliani campaign. Not one of those morons knew that Rudy had beaten confessions out of mobsters and sent them to prison. Not one of them knew that Rudy had fought off multiple attempts to intimidate him by having pitched submachinegun battles with cars full of mobsters, just like something out of the 1930s. Not one of them knew that the mob had been trying to carry out contract hits on Rudy for decades. There is one assassin, they call him Mufstafa the Blade, who was given $750,000 by the Gambino and Scarpatoni crime families to avenge the prosecution of Dead Legs Toppo, aka Vinnie Fish Eyes, aka Luciano Montellisimo.

This is why Rudy has to have more security than most. I suspect the mob is to blame for the demise of Rudy's campaign. I cannot prove it, but the Unions have been working overtime on behalf of their crime boss overlords to sink Rudy's chances.

What chaps me right now is this blog giving voice to so many Hillary surrogates like MDS. And Widmer's specious "No JFK" article jumps at my handheld phone when I read this blog all month.
Anyway, the press's first inclination these days is to become the story. I like Obama's instincts to manage them away from making an off-the-cuff remark into the nexus of his message. The Reagan remark springs to mind.
What has Hillary ever accomplished on her own, incidentally? She is truly an unknown save for her pandering time in the lackluster Congress. I am tired of nepotism, dynasties, and the entire GOP.

What has Hillary ever accomplished on her own, incidentally? She is truly an unknown save for her pandering time in the lackluster Congress. I am tired of nepotism, dynasties, and the entire GOP.

We were in entire agreement, until you lost your mind and slammed my beloved Grand Old Party.

We are the only thing that is protecting America from More-of-the-Same from the Clintonistas and the creation of a politburo led by Chairman Hillary. You ask a question that sits at the business end of a loaded gun--what has she ever accomplished?

Nothing! You can give thanks to Republicans like myself who have worked overtime for years to thwart her collossal ambitions and hold in check her single-minded lust for power and control of the lives of every single American. She is like a wild-eyed beaver, eating every tree in the woods to turn a thin creek into a raging river below a massive government-built resevoir.

Think I'm kidding? The woman wants to control how you raise your children. Specialized farming collectives dedicated to growing winter wheat in June in ground heavily salted by orders of her seventy million agriculture bureaucrats is not far behind.

Shine your red stars, comrades.

You lost me at "Howie Kurtz."

And look at all the interesting moonbat rightwingnuts in the comments. I love the bit about Giuliani's "pitched submachinegun battles." The subtle irony is fabulous.

As I think about it, there's at least one other modern American politician who had as overrated a reputation as Obama: George W Bush after 9/11.

But at least that can be discounted as a rally-around-the-flag effect.

Obama's reputation is, in contrast, made up out of the thinnest of air. A few speeches and couple of books which by any objective reckoning are pretty pedestrian in their effects -- little more than flowery banalities (and even the flowers seem plastic).

Wonder how much print Howie has devoted to Bubbleboy himself, the Codpiece-in-Chief, who has given less press conferences during his nearly 8 (insufferable) years in the White House than any president in history . . .

I love the bit about Giuliani's "pitched submachinegun battles."

I'm sorry--you lost me at the part where you thought it was funny to joke about how Rudy had to use an Uzi to fend off an assassination from the Genovese family in 1983.

It is not widely known, but two soldiers from the Genovese family followed Rudy and his bodyguard to an eatery. Rudy and his man had a meal, the cannoli was excellent, according to the news reports. As Rudy got into his town car, the Genovese soldiers opened up with shotguns. Rudy immediately pulled the Uzi out of his briefcase and peppered their vehicle with rounds, causing them to accelerate into a parked car. Rudy and his man sped away, only to be followed by two more soldiers, who fired on the town car. Rudy popped another clip into the Uzi and fired at them, causing them to drive into a telephone pole.

THIS is what we want in a President--a man who stands up for the rule of law against all odds.

Wonder how much print Howie has devoted to Bubbleboy himself, the Codpiece-in-Chief, who has given less press conferences during his nearly 8 (insufferable) years in the White House than any president in history

And of course it will be so much better if a Democratic President does the same.

In general it's kinda funny to see Obama supporters coming out in favor of Obama doing the very things that they once upon a time ridiculed Bush for.

Bush is the bubble boy -- but if Obama is one too, that's really and tremendously different!

Bush was a crazed coke head -- but if Obama indulged too, that was really and tremendously different, and you're a racist for even bringing up the subject!

why not have the press rate the candidates press relations after the election?

it could be published in US News and World Report as "best campaigns to cover"

it would fit in the cycle nicely with "best companises to work for", "best colleges", "best high schools", "best starbucks", "best pizzaria's", etc

As someone who attended an Obama political rally with a press pass here in St. Louis back in October, I can personally attest to this phenomena. Photographers and journalists were largely kept at bay throughout the event.

Photographers were actually barred from the press pit in front of the stage were Obama was speaking at the start of the event, and only allowed to visit the press pit one or two at a time during Obama's presentation, and they had to be escorted by an Obama campaign member.

I can tell you that many of the press people were not amused, and I've never heard of such a thing. I had to get in line with about 15 other photographers, and I was lucky to get two or three minutes in front of the stage to get my pictures.

There was a section directly to the right of the stage that was reserved for the elderly and disabled, and the press was barred from that area during the event as well. I think I would've had more opportunity to take pictures if I had just gotten in front of the stage early before the event started.

The Obama campaign seems far more concerned with catering to supporters, then to the media. It was a bit shocking actually, and quite impressive as well.

I can understand how media people get overwhelmed during Obama speeches, because it really is like being a rock concert, that is the only thing that is really comparable to the experience I had. The crowd energy was really unbelievable. The old guard journalists are the only ones who didn't seem to get caught up in the fervor, all the young people, photographers and journalists 40 and under, had huge smiles on their faces the whole time.

I can understand how media people get overwhelmed during Obama speeches, because it really is like being a rock concert, that is the only thing that is really comparable to the experience I had. The crowd energy was really unbelievable.

And how might that be different from, say, a Celine Dion concert? You assemble a critical mass of die-hard fans, and you get "crowd energy".

Look, the guy can get "crowd energy" out of something as trite as repeating the banality "Fired up! Ready to go!" That's what happens when you're the "It" guy. Until you stop being the "It" guy, of course.

Sen. Obama is simply practicing modern campaign tradecraft in his treatment of the press.

Fundamentally, Obama is no less a creature of the permanent campaign than Sen. Clinton or President Bush. His involvement in national politics, since before he was elected to the Senate in 2004, has been almost entirely in the context of the positioning needed for him to run for the White House this year.

This does not promise great things for the country if he should actually be elected, but for now the relevant point is that right at the core of modern campaign tradecraft is message discipline. It's absolutely fundamental. The press corps is not always a threat to message discipline, but it is always a potential threat -- all it takes is a couple of reporters asking a candidate on-the-record questions he has not prepared for, and a news cycle can be lost fighting off a story not under the campaign's control.

Obama, and his handlers, are aware of this, and aware also that as long as things seem to be going well he will pay no political price for stiffing the reporters who travel with his campaign. He knows this because the last two Presidents have both treated the press in much the same way. So does Sen. Clinton. So do Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani. Sen. McCain, obviously, does not, and if McCain were to be elected President it's possible the rules of the game would change; avoiding questions from reporters might come to be taken as a sign of a manipulative personality, or of simple cowardice.

But this is not certain, and McCain hasn't been elected to anything outside the state of Arizona. Sen. Obama very likely doesn't like going back and forth with reporters very much, on a personal level. I really don't think that's the most important consideration. Message discipline in modern election campaigns requires maintaining rigid control of the message, which in turn requires that the press report what the campaign wants them to report. It is much easier to ensure this if access to the candidate by the press is tightly controlled at all times.

Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists, having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa

What possible value would an off-the-record chat have for a reader? These sound like spoiled brats who want to be admitted to the inner circle and consulted with like they were advisors.

Really, this is one of the best things I have ever heard about Obama.

Message discipline in modern election campaigns requires maintaining rigid control of the message, which in turn requires that the press report what the campaign wants them to report. It is much easier to ensure this if access to the candidate by the press is tightly controlled at all times.

Still another advocate of the bubble boy approach. And here I thought that it was a really bad thing because, well, just look at Bush for Christ's sake.

Oh, how the times have changed.

And how might that be different from, say, a Celine Dion concert? You assemble a critical mass of die-hard fans, and you get "crowd energy".

You obviously have never heard Barack do his amazing rendition of "My Heart Will Go On"!

You obviously have never heard Barack do his amazing rendition of "My Heart Will Go On"!

I can't allow myself. Tears start from my Obama-hating eyes, and I fall into a swoon.

frankly0: Obama blah blah blah....

again, Obama blah blah blah....

once again, Obama blah blah blah....

Why is no one listening to me? I know this Obama blah blah blah...
He is a phony, the devil, the antichrist, blah blah blah....

Why am I being ignored? I know things you don't know, I'm smarter than all of you. You are allowing yourselves to be taken for fools, Obama is like Bush, blah blah blah....

Hello, Hellooo, Hellooooooooo, anybody there?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... Borrriiiiiiiiiiing!

GOD,

Read your junk.

Talk about overinflated reputations!

The Obama campaign seems far more concerned with catering to supporters, then to the media.

Man, that is just shocking. Doesn't Obama realize that the whole point of elections is to provide grist for the media to chew on? This whole process would go so much more smoothly if it weren't for those pesky voters.

If the Washington press corps doesn't get to ask enough questions, then who will protect our liberty?

From the candidates' verbal gaffes, sex lives, and hair styles, I mean.

Brilliant, Norman. You are in fine form this morning.

Shine your red stars, comrades.

And GOD, thank you for answering a prayer.

....The old guard journalists are the only ones who didn't seem to get caught up in the fervor, all the young people,.... had huge smiles on their faces .... Aaron B. Brown at 10:47 AM

Craig Crawford: "[T]he evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness"

...CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger....

We saw the same crap against Al Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Both times, the media did their best to elect George W. Bush. How'd that work out for us? These beltway elitists are so out of touch they think that they should be the story.

I'd like someone to tell me the last time the media gave favorable coverage to a Democrat in a GE? Anyone who thinks the kid-glove press treatment of Obama will continue once the Republicans have their nominee has a short memory.

Do people actually believe the Republicans will suddenly come to their senses, care about the country, and play fair if Obama becomes president? Really??

Such a double standard in these posts ...
If Clinton doesn't talk to the press, she is somehow avoiding the issues, afraid to talk, et al, but when Obama does it, it's refreshing and a new type of campaigning?
Listen, I support Clinton in the primaries, but will gladly, happily, lovingly vote for Obama in the general election.
But, please spare me the BS ... it's OK that Obama supporters are such hardcore fans, but the level of hypocrisy is unbecoming and more than a little hostile.
And if any of you are under the misguided impression that the press will go along with this limited access much longer without lashing back, you're more naive than I thought.

I don't know if this is a wise policy of Obama's or not but it seems to be working. In any case it is not a good reason to go for Clinton who has years of bad press and bad press relations to over come. Better the candidate that starts out ahead then the one that starts out behind.

It has been pretty clear that, although the press gives him a pass when he makes damaging off-the-cuff remarks, the Clinton campaign does not. He has spent 2 weeks defending his "Reaan and the party of ideas" interview, and he fed the same fire yesterday on "This Week", though most liberals and maybe even Clinton are too tired of talking about Reagan to pounce on it again. He just is not a good, clear, off-the-cuff speaker and is keeping his odds of a fatal mistake low.

Sen. Obama stays aloof from everyone. He is unresponsive to any inputs or requests for his output. Even his voting patterns as a state legislator were aloof, as those many present and 'accidental' votes demonstrate. Sen. Obama misses votes in Congress that might reveal something about him, too. His charisma and oratory skills are impressive, but his pronouncements of the willingness to use nuclear weapons and American military power is what the press appreciates. His finger wagging will eventually irk them, but his lack of respect to their power is what will become most annoying.

One quibble, editorialists like Howard Kurtz hide behind the facade they are journalists. Perhaps Sen. Obama is not disdainful of journalists, but of media opinion hacks. These hacks think their writing in prominent newpapers informs opinion. If Obama's popularity does not rely on media opinion, he would be correct to ignore them. It is probably in Obama's best interest, at this stage of the campaign, to keep elitist media opinion makers from outright endorsing him. If entrenched media hacks endorse him, that sends the wrong signal to the electorate expecting change. For Obama, it is better that those expecting change with his presidency not be too well informed until after the election.

The Press needs to back off. The Obama campaign will give them tidbits.

The campaign is grueling enough without having to answer questions to 100 microphonies (pun intended) at a time!

Norman Rogers always makes my day. He's a trip.

Although I think it's great that Obama gives precedence to voters at events, I'm also worried about Obama's distance from the press. oxonhoya at 7:03 and BernieO at 8:28 explained why. The honeymoon will be over at some point, and the media is fickle and vain.

I do remember the press fawning over Bush in 2000 and all the slack he got for being "a grownup" from "a good family". It was sheer class bias that burns me up just thinking about it. Yes Gore is from the upper class but the press treated him like a proxy for the upstart Clintons while playing along with Bush's phony cowboy act. The press corps then proceeded to act like a pack of zombies during the march to war. And what did Bush's pedigree get us? America floating face down in the pool while Daisy and Tom make their merry way.

having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa

Ah, yes. The all important who-do-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with test.

Wow. Judging from the amount of sheer venom thrown in Obama's way this morning by some apparent GOPsters, it seems that the GOP is pivoting from their "Hillary is satan" line to "Obama is a sham" line. I guess SC really go to some folks. Some of these people may be Hillary supporters or just generalized haters too, but their venom is well seems a pretty clear reaction to a major success.

BTW, I don't count Norman Rodgers. Funny stuff. So, Norm, who do you think should play Rudy in the movie? Sadly, Lon Chaney is long gone, but perhaps his "Phantom of the Opera" make-up can be recreated.

As for Howie Kurtz, cue the violins. If the press wants to be treated like adults, they need to start acting that way. Their treatment of Bush proves that most of them have the mentality of...I wanna say "hyenas" but I think they probably have more integrity than a lot of these folks who get the vapors (and be all too easily manipulated) by the magic of "access." The American has proven itself to be broken. If they want the respect of anyone, candidates or readers, they're going to have to stop whining, stop trying to control the conversation, and start actually reporting.

Right now, it looks to me as if Obama's doing something right. And I love his "You're better than that" response to the reporter asking the cheap, leading question -- the equivalent, almost, of asking a bereaved relative "How do you feel?" (which still happens, btw, unbelievably). A bit of brilliantly applied Christianity, I'd call it.

Yes Gore is from the upper class but the press treated him like a proxy for the upstart Clintons while playing along with Bush's phony cowboy act. The press corps then proceeded to act like a pack of zombies during the march to war. And what did Bush's pedigree get us? America floating face down in the pool while Daisy and Tom make their merry way.

That is precisely my point--although, to be fair, Bush was an authentic cowboy who could ride a horse and manage a large ranch. I see no evidence that he has been proven a fraud when it comes to driving a pick-em up truck and wearing jeans that are dusty and creased while looking very tanned, lean and muscular.

The problem with Rudy is that he never talked about his time spent fighting crime. Americans know him as a mayor, but what they should have known from the get-go was that Rudy was putting criminals in jail when John McCain and Mitt Romney were wet behind the ears and confused about who to pander to.

I used to call up this fellow I know who worked, briefly, for Rudy and scream at him. I told him to talk about the organized crime that Rudy has fought. Americans love organized crime and the way that it permeates the culture. Apparently, Rudy resisted the notion of doing so because he is modest, did not want to brag, and did not want to disclose just how many times he had to trade gunfire with mobsters. It's sad to see an American original go down in flames.

Behold the magic of Obama: Senator Ted Kennedy makes his first unambiguously positive appearance on the Drudge Report.

Frankly0, Sandy: please quit shilling for Hillary. You are embarrassing yourselves. I used to take you seriously. Like Hillary.

Even his voting patterns as a state legislator were aloof, as those many present and 'accidental' votes demonstrate.

Brojo, why are you circulating this meme. Obama voted present about 130 times out of 4000; present votes are an accepted tactic in Illinois politics.

With each TV program and article Kurtz writes, he sounds more and more Republican. He is far from objective when it comes to Democrats and liberal blogs.

With each TV program and article Kurtz writes, he sounds more and more Republican.

Oh, bah! There are no Republicans working for the Washington Post.

Why should he pal around with the press? And why is it "disturbing" if he doesn't?

I'm electing a president, not a buddy for the press. Reporters can get a dog or go hang out with McCain if they want a buddy. As to the idea that they'll be nicer to him if he charms them, why, look how well that worked out for Bill Clinton! It worked for Bush, it works for McCain. It never works for Democrats

Seems to me there's a slight chance it'd benefit him and a BIG chance they'd use it to write the kind of lightweight horse race "character" crap they always write about Hillary. If Obama started courting the press we'd get more Maureen Dowd columns questioning his masculinity. Keep those bastards at arm's length

Kevin, I think you missed the main point of Howard Kurtz's article: The Obama campaign's rejection of SPIN. Here's the "money" line Howard Kurtz's piece: "The no-spin zone is part of the Obama campaign's identity, with the candidate stealing a phrase from John McCain in telling crowds he wants 'a politics that's not based on PR and spin but is based on straight talk.'"

"Frankly0, Sandy: please quit shilling for Hillary"

Frankly0 isn't so much shilling for Hillary as he is shilling against Obama. He's been displaying a wholly irrational hatred of Obama for months, on this and other forums.

"Still another advocate of the bubble boy approach. And here I thought that it was a really bad thing because, well, just look at Bush for Christ's sake."

Dear heart, Bush is a bubble boy for everyone, not just the press. If you have evidence that this is the case for Obama, as well, we'd love to hear it. What Kevin posted ain't it.

Drum: ..it's a bad sign if Obama's press operation hasn't been honed to deal with it.

Heh. I'd say that Obama's press operation is dealing with it...

..why stay aloof from a press corps that loves you?

'Cause they can turn on you at any time. The press corps are not your friends, and are not even neutral...Their job is to get a story together that gets attention, and the quickest way to acheiving that objective is to 'report the controversy', even if none exists, is sourced from an opposing viewpoint, or - rarely - manufactured from whole cloth.

I am offering the theme Sen. Obama is aloof because he skipped the vote on the Lieberman-Kyl measure. He does not want me to think he is for nuking Iran and he does not want independents and Reaganites to think he is not for nuking Iran. I have little confidence he is not for keeping Iran as a useful demon to continue US military aggression.

I will reconsider his present votes in IL and try not to use them as a critical measure. Thank you for the link.

He's been displaying a wholly irrational hatred of Obama for months, on this and other forums.

Oh no! I think that Obama is really bad news for Democrats!

How dare I argue that case, with examples and evidence, in the midst of a campaign! It's crazed, deranged behavior, I tell you!

Can't someone stop me before I criticize again??

When Obama wins he could harness Chrissy's exploding head as an alternative energy source.

lol...and franklyo's noggin can be the backup generator. (is there a volume control on that thing?)

How dare I argue that case, with examples and evidence, in the midst of a campaign! It's crazed, deranged behavior, I tell you!

Speaking as someone who knows derangement and knows it inside and out, I can tell you, categorically, that what you speak of is merely internecine warfare.

I do so love a fight between liberals. Hoo hoo! Tally ho!

That is precisely my point--although, to be fair, Bush was an authentic cowboy who could ride a horse and manage a large ranch.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Only someone as mentally ill as Rogers would be unaware that Bush is, in fact, terrified of horses. Rogers really needs to get back to the treatment facility.

If Clinton doesn't talk to the press, she is somehow avoiding the issues, afraid to talk, et al, but when Obama does it, it's refreshing and a new type of campaigning?

Actually, given how much the press hates her and the number of lies they've spread about her in the past 15+ years, I think it's smart of her to avoid them as much as possible.

You seem to be confusing the posters here with the press, who are the ones lauding Obama's aloofness but deploring Hillary's.

Out of curiosity, how many Hillary supporters here will refuse to vote for Obama if he wins the nomination?

Only someone as mentally ill as Rogers would be unaware that Bush is, in fact, terrified of horses.

Yes, but everyone knows that Bush is afraid specifically of Arabians, and for good reason, sir. The breed of horse called "Arabian" actually comes from Saudi Arabia, in case you were not aware, and this is where the 9/11 terrorists hatched their schemes. It is also the place where, in secret Madrassas, they train specially bred Arabian horses to explode near unsuspecting American politicians. They contain proximity fuses and wireless devices to accomplish this feat--it is widely known.

Of course "you" and "widely known facts" have never really gotten introduced, have they?

DJ,

Norman, not the Norman from 2004 btw, is engaging in high satire. Bush as a competent cowboy? C'mon. That's the stuff of opera.

I might also add that it was Bush's fear of Arabian horses that led him to dismiss Mr. Michael Brown, a gentleman who had done yeoman's work with the small problem in New Orleans a couple of years back.

Bush had every reason to feel continued confidence in his man Brownie, but he wisely decided he couldn't take a chance where Arabian horses were concerned. That is putting national security above personal considerations, something liberals with their group hugs and obsession with "self esteem" know nothing about.

Sen. Obama stays aloof from everyone....Brojo at 11:57 AM

....Bush was an authentic cowboy who could ride a horse and manage a large ranch. ...The problem with Rudy is that he never talked about his time spent fighting crime. ,,,,..ab- Norman Rogers at 12:19 PM

present votes are an accepted tactic in Illinois politics..... Lucy at 12:32 PM

....there are no Republicans working for the Washington Post.....ab-Norman Rogers at 12:44 PM

I don’t know Obama. I have never read his books. I have never seen a speech. I don’t have cable TV. I am one of those old geezers (that his supporters seem to disdain) who still reads newspapers every day.

If Obama doesn’t talk to reporters, how will people like me get to know him?

Out of curiosity, how many Hillary supporters here will refuse to vote for Obama if he wins the nomination?

Me! Me!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah.

Suck eggs, liberals. Suck them dry and roll them under your hope chest.

Norman, not the Norman from 2004 btw, is engaging in high satire.

No, but thank you for perpetuating this myth that I can sneak past the moderators on a heavily moderated blog. It makes me look even more sinister than I really am. Plus, I cannot use the term "Kevin Dumbo" or I will be moderated, so that probably throws you off.

I am the same as I ever was, and am thoroughly enjoying how liberals are ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory simply because they can't let go of the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are powermad crazy evil people who haven't had sex with each other in, well, let's see...how old is Chelsea again?

You're confusing me with someone who cares what liberals think. I say whatever I want because I simply have no regard for you people anymore. You are bugs, and I'm the windshield, and I am cleaned of your guts and debris regularly by a caring and devoted owner.

If Obama doesn’t talk to reporters, how will people like me get to know him?

Perhaps you'll bump shopping carts with him at the Piggly Wiggly. When you do, try not to laugh at the melons he has in his cart.

Obama is pretty good in interviews on TV, so I don't think that this strategy is a cover up for him not being good without a prepared statement.

You sure fooled me, Norman.

Loved the bugs/windshield/guts-and-debris-cleaning devoted owner. Great material, whoever you are.

According to Obama and the press (at the moment)

Rezko is a nonissue and mentioning it is a personal attack on Obama.
Whitewater, on the contrary, was worth spending 100,000,000 to investigate because the Clinton's lost their 10,000 investment. Oh, yes, and Clinton making 100,000 on the futures market once is evidence of bribery and political payoffs.

Obama’s attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is racist as is any attack on him, his record, his policy or his statements. Any attempt to counter his attacks with a response is a vile racist below-the-belt smear.

Discussions of experience and youth are racist personal attacks.
Discussion of experience, competence and issue understanding is irrelevant because what really matters are calls for togetherness and bipartisanship.

Any revisiting of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he meant to say or do.
Any Clinton restatement is hypocrisy and flop-flipping of the most egregious sort.

....You're confusing me with someone who cares....ab-Norman Rogers at 1:38 PM

Mike--
Sucks to have to justify the dirty campaign, don't it?