Lemme Eat My Waffle

Jay:

Maybe Obama should hold a waffleQue at his house. Would that make you feel better.

This is yet another reason why obamabots need to buy themselves a clue about their precious obama. When a crisis happens at breakfast will the great one complain about not getting his wittle eggo or will we have a President like Hillary Clinton who will take care of business.

Obama and his brainwashed minions are much like the brainwashed youth of the 1930s in Germany and Italy - lots of talk about hope to a bunch of angry people - and you remember where those cults of personality led.

go Hillary!

I heard he got one of them fancy elitist BELGIAN waffles, too! Damn left coast liberal elites eating his high-society foreign food! Surely that monstrous gaffe alone would drive the next week's worth of postings here, no?

What I don't understand is why talking to Hamas is automatically assumed to be a terrible thing. The US has talked to all sorts of "terrorist" groups in the past, before they agreed to renounce terror, and those talks lead to peace treaties. Jimmy Carter isn't even representing the government. He is a private citizen.

Did you know that the breakfast that St. McCain ate this morning was "pretty much the opposite" of the breakfast he wanted to eat?

So now we are going to have eggo gate on hands? Tweety can opine on Hardball about how Obama can't just go into a diner filled with regular people. White regular people because they are the only Americans that are regular guys and count for anything and order an eggo and answer reporters questions. Why can't he do that!!!

This should disqualify him from holding higher office.

Did he use real maple syrup or that corn syrup stuff? If it's the former, then he's an elitist who looks down his nose at those who use Aunt Jemima, if it's the latter it shows he's a phony.

Either way, this is bad news for Obama, bad news for Democrats, and great news for John McCain.

Are we going to get waffle-gate now?

If these things are so pressing, why didn't anyone ask him about Carter and Hamas during the ABC debate? Can you blame him for being less than chipper when he's gotten the Full Freakshow Treatment lately?

Mark Halperin has this as one of his lead stories on ThePage.

So once again, the best choice for President of the country, Commander in chief of the Armed forces and Leader of the free world is the one willing to kiss the press Corp's ass!?

Do us all a favor JNS and BUTT OUT. It isn't about you.

PS - I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Under the circumstances.

TomT: I can't look. Please tell me you this is not a lead story already. Some press guy got his feelings hurt. OMG!

Hey Jay,

I am not sure if you caught it...but there was this debate on ABC last week.

Those great journalists Gibson and Stephanpolis asked precisely those burning guilt-by-association questions public needs to know.

Shame on Obama from thinking his breakfast was more important than indulging tabloid journalist.

Hmmmm, equating asking a president about sending our youth off to a war - even as the case for it is tenuous at best - on a golf course and asking a candidate a complicated question regarding diplomacy as he sits down to eat his breakfast.

Are you kidding me? Did you really post this? Is the media that intent on forcing this narrative that Obama is elitist and aloof that they seek a comparison this absurd is maddening.

What kind of person orders waffles in a diner anyway? You're supposed to order eggs and hash browns. Can't he even do diners properly?

And here he is giving the cold shoulder to a toddler.

After taking questions from "members of the press" at the last debate, who can blame Obama for not wanting to waste the time?

Oooo, look at Mr. Fancy Pants up there talking about "Eggo-gate." Well, Mr. Big City Elitist, here in Small Town USA it's Food Club brand waffles. You and your high-society effete liberal snobs can sit around eating Eggos all day long, but you don't have a clue what it's like out here in the Real America.

Hey Jay, I heard he secretly prefers french toast. This is potentially huge.

OK, so he doesn't like to be asked questions while he's eating.

Maybe you should try catching him in the rest room.

Or, you could convince your colleagues to ask him substantial questions during public appearances. Or better yet, during um, candidate debates.

OMG! FRENCH TOAST?!?!!?!? This election is over!

Hour two of WaffleGate begins...how will Obama respond?

The phone is ringing at 3 am and it's someone trying to order waffles. They've dialed the wrong number. Hillary would talk the person through a menu of options for actual diners to calls. McCain would invite the person over for a barbecue, waffles be damned (yes, he's that much of a maverick). What would Obama do? Hang up on the person? Tell the person they were clinging to waffles out of bitterness? Until we know the answer to this, there's no way we can say Obama's ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

I doubt no matter what Obama does he'll ever garner the love McCain has from the press.
It's a keen trick: McCain offers full access; the press eats it up and gives him the benefit-of-the-doubt on multiple mistakes, lapses, controversies and poor judgment; the opposing candidate sees they aren't treated the same and begins to resent the press; the candidate begins to restrict the amount of time they give to the press...and then...and then the press resents the candidate and it shows in their reporting.
Brilliant strategy. Of course, if Obama wins, he may just remember how he wasn't the media's candidate.

Hey Jay, I heard he secretly prefers french toast.

Is it made with store-bought bread or brioche? If it's store-bought bread, I give him a pass. If it's brioche, he's toast.

I'd rather eat waffles than take away the passports of private citizens and former presidents, especially if they are working on a peace deal.

Maybe the commies, McCain and Clinton, don't have a problem striping private citizens of their rights but Obama supports liberty and freedom. He doesn't believe in an unchecked, fascistic like, central government, the way McCain and Clinton do.

I notice that the photo on The Page has Obama extending his middle finger.

My goodness, the lobotomized press will just not let an opportunity pass to get all self-righteous. Guess what: no one cares. How can you complain about lack of access when there were "15+" press people present to give us Wafflegate?

Furthermore, you must bear in mind that it took Michael Moore to give us "Now watch this drive." Manufacturing this waffleupagus does not make you Michael Moore. It makes you a wanker.

"Or, you could convince your colleagues to ask him substantial questions during public appearances. Or better yet, during um, candidate debates."

Why would any serious reporter waste valuable debate time asking questions about Hamas? That makes no sense. I better question at the debate I think would is Carter as American has Obama is. That's a real question.

wow, JNS, right now all the nasty comments about the MSM are ringing so true because

If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation; Obama might consider holding avails with a little more regularity.

So the question now, while St. McCain was busy on his backwater tour
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/quilters-serenade-mccain/

Did any of your colleagues think to ask him the same damn question? hmm, wonder, huh, did anyone who calls them self a reporter ask him? or even Clinton? JNS, do you realize how biased your post is? It's pathetic. How can you even compare when no one has bothered to do the same with Clinton and McCain, especially you're granddaddy McCain. God why are you still on this blog???!!1

At least there will be no need to watch the news for the next 4 nights since this is the kind of thing the press can really sink it's teeth into. It will be running non-stop on a 24 hour cycle.

At leat MSNBC had the courtesy to explain Obama's position on Carters trip based on his prior public statements of which there were apparently plenty to choose from.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/21/927731.aspx

JNS on the other hand seems more interested in issuing not-so-veiled threats.

A candidate trying to eat a waffle with 20 journalists stuffed behind him and flashbulbs going off. It all sounds excruciatingly embarrassing for everyone involved.

Jay, can you define for us the line between "taking advantage of close proximity" and "being a douche?" Furthermore, since there are so many pressing questions building up, what were the other 14 press people doing? Why weren't they shouting their questions? I mean, Hamas isn't going to be an issue once the waffle is finished!! Answers are needed now!!

Even if Obama recovers from this gaffe and wins tomorrow, this is going to hurt him in the general election.

Mark my words. By the time Fox news, Hannity and Rush get done with this, Obama is going to have either may this reporter afraid for his physical safety or threaten to beat the crap out of him. By next week we can count on the emails landing in our inboxes claiming "And this thug wants to be president."

If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation

How can this be true, Jay? Michael keeps claiming McCain won't let reporters ask any questions of him.

Is Michael lying? Or are you?

Acid J:
Jay, can you define for us the line between "taking advantage of close proximity" and "being a douche?"

Ahh, so true, it's priceless....

If you want to see McCain waffling, just turn off the teleprompter. McCain is totally lost - it's embarrassing to see an adult with no idea what he ought to be saying claiming that he is fit to be president. Still, it ought to lead to some great comedy clips for the masses.

I've been told endlessly the secret to how McCain marinates his ribs. Does Obama marinate his waffles?

This is going to be a fun election.

Florida, you're not seeing the bigger picture here. McCain gives the press total access, but it's simply common courtesy that you don't ask tough questions of somebody who's been so nice to you that he let you ride on his bus and everything.

Plus, the not answering questions that McCain actually does is "pretty much the opposite" of the complete transparency he wishes he could have.

I wonder if the press has ever done a cause and effect analysis with respect to why liberals don't talk to them any longer? It may have something to do with the way they spread right-wing talking points.

John McCain is 100% behind the radical right on Iraq and the economy, the only two issues people really care about, and yet he is portrayed as some sort of moderate. How many times has he actually crossed the aisle in his political career? My guess is it is about 3 or 4 times because I keep hearing the same 3 or 4 examples over and over.

The reason McCain spends so much time with the press is because he wants them to think of him as a friend, so they won't treat him the same way they treat liberals. He also wants them to overlook the fact that he is on the radical right and nowhere near being a moderate. The sad thing is it appears to be working becuse there is no question that he gets a free pass from most of the media.

As ever, Jay, you're seeing a lot of frustration here that applies to the media altogether, not just to anything you've said or done. I hope that you understand it in that context.

Most people who are interested in policy don't think that expanded media access would serve any reasonable purpose. As Karen Tumulty put it, "The media did a really bad job of covering the run-up to the war." It hasn't shown any signs of doing a better job at anything since, either.

Everyone thinks that the media will ask him dumb questions then blow irrelevant stuff out of proportion, so increased availability seems less important than better reporting.

J.J. "Maybe you should try catching him in the rest room."

***

Reporter: "Sen. Obama! Do you denouce and reject Jimmy Carter? Or do you just renounce him, with a side of rejection?"

Obama: "Please stop looking at my wang."

Reporter: "Okay, but if Carter and Rezko were together in a rowboat, and you had one life preserver...."

Even if Obama recovers from this gaffe and wins tomorrow, this is going to hurt him in the general election.

It's not going away, says Mark Halprin and The Page.

I disagree Elvis.

I'm perfectly willing to single out JNS. Read this again:

Journalists in general don’t relish asking politicians questions in awkward situations, like on a golf course or over a waffle. But sometimes our hands are forced: Obama hasn’t given a press conference in 10 days and the questions, some of them -- like Hamas -- rather important, are starting to build up. If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation; Obama might consider holding avails with a little more regularity. Then, maybe, reporters would let him to eat in peace

She is specifically reserving the right to hector the candidate and then write snippy hit pieces if they don't respond to her liking. She made herself quite clear.

You must have misheard things. There's no way a reporter was asking a substantive question. I"m sure the question was: "So, I see you're not wearing your flagpin. Why do hate America?" Or maybe it was "why do you want to screw with my capital gains tax?" Because, as I learned last week from the diligent press, these are the most pressing topics in the world.

And how dare the man try to eat? Just who does he think he is?

And the more I read, the more convinced I become the political press is nothing but a bunch of spoiled frakking brats.

The media's ineptitude on all matters political started a bit before the run up to the Iraq War. Drop Al Gore an email sometime on the internet that he supposedly claimed to have invented; I'm sure he can tell you some stories.

Jay,

I'd agree with you if the question being asked were truly important or even original. He already dealt with Carter's trip during the debate. It's also not really a question for him, it's a question for Carter. So, I can see him being annoyed given that the question was a stinker.

She is specifically reserving the right to hector the candidate and then write snippy hit pieces if they don't respond to her liking. She made herself quite clear.

Wait, are you suggesting that this whole process isn't for the benefit of the reporters covering it? I'm not following you.

Obama got a lot of grief for Jeremiah Wright's endorsement of Farrakhan. I wonder when you guys will say anything about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

I'll wait for a rejection and denunciation from Hillary Clinton.

Thank you.

Here is the boilerplate response that the press could expect from Obama. I don't know why you need to ask this question, since he has already outlined how he will deal with our allies and adversaries, but I'll hazard a guess.

"When I am elected I will, unlike our Republican counterparts, be willing to speak with our adversaries as well as our allies. You can't make peace with your enemies by only talking to your friends.
President Carter has a long history of working for peace outside of regular diplomatic channels. He is in most cases to be commended for his work over the years. All Americans should be proud of what Mr. Carter has done with his time since leaving office."

The beginning of a setup: Obama would have got better coverage, but he just didn't do a good job of managing the media, so ... in the end he got what he deserved. As soon as he does start talking to the media, we'll see his words twisted, turned and used against him. Hell, Al Gore was accused of having claimed to invent the internet; when you hacks are done with Obama, he'll have claimed to invent the heavens and earth, and in fewer than six days. Gotta love them Clinton rules.

And speaking of Clinton rules, I distinctly remember reading some whiny-assed reporters complaining, in actual stories, because Hillary didn't give them enough access. Obama, from the bits and pieces I've been able to pick up, has given even less access than she has, but I've seen few complaints besides tepid ones like these, and in the meantime, Clinton's coverage has been uniformly horrible and negative, while Obama's, until the past couple of weeks, has been McCain-like. The excuse you people give for your slanted coverage, that you favor one candidate over another because of the "access" they give you, looks pretty fishy -- not that it's much of an excuse in the first place.

If Clinton were the one not talking to the press and getting irritated about being interrupted while eating her waffles, most Obama supporters would be rightly upset.

Also, we don't know all the journalists involved, and there's no reason to assume they were only going to ask trivial questions. In fact the subject of questioning JNS specifically mentions - Hamas - is not exactly trivial.

And Obama wasn't just accidentally eating his waffles in front of a crowd of journalists; It's part of his effort to look like a regular guy who enjoys unhealthy food. (And yes, it's weird that he even has to do that) So if the press are going to avidly report on Obama's bowling and his junk food shopping trip at Rite-Aid, they should dare to interrupt his breakfast to ask him about Hamas. And Obama should take the time to answer questions about the (non-existent) Middle East peace process. He is running for President.

The same standard applies to Clinton. If she's refusing to answer questions while expecting the media to cover her beer drinking, the media should interrupt her breakfast too.

Scene: a diner on the edge of civilization. Humanity's final meal is being consumed.

Time passes. Fifteen-plus reporters look on expectantly. A waffle is served.

Obama [in the manner of a surgeon]: Butter. Syrup. Knife.

The scraping of china fills the room.

Obama: This will be tasty. It was nice knowing y'all.

The lights flicker. The stage shakes. The world is ending. Everyone looks on in silence.

Reporter: MY GOD! WOULD YOU TALK TO HAMAS!!?

The world ends. Fade out.

Maybe if you guys would let him eat a damn waffle once in a while, he'd hold some press conferences. I mean, what does a guy have to do to get a damn waffle around in here?

Or...hold on...or here's an even better idea. You know how reporters bring donuts to McCain like the faithful lapdogs you are? Maybe if you tried that with Obama, he'd answer your questions, instead of being grouchy because he's got low blood sugar.

Obama: "Please stop looking at my wang."

Regular guys don't mind when someone stares at their wang. They like it. They're proud of it, just like G. Gordon Liddy says:

And here comes George Bush. You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- and I've worn those because I parachute -- and it makes the best of his manly characteristic....You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out.

Obama seems to have come to the conclusion that the press are a bunch of whiney "gotcha" artists that follow him around everywhere like hornets.

While somehow McCain has gotten the idea that the press are a bunch of fawning teddy bears who bring him Dunkin Donuts and offer to give him foot rubs.

Now how did they come to such disparate conclusions?

For once I want to give Jay a break and suggest that her real point was the fact that Obama hasn’t given a press conference in 10 days. I suggest that they wouldn't have been so eager to interrupt his breakfast if there had been some other opportunities.

I posted a link to this article on Obama's lack of press access in February and said I thought it was going to become a problem for him. I still do, even though McCain has limited his a bit now he has a history with his base.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8685.html

"For all the positive press Barack Obama receives, as he moves closer to clinching the Democratic nomination he is establishing himself as the candidate who keeps the most distance from the national media.

Reporters covering Obama can no longer move freely among the thousands of zealous supporters at his events — unless the reporter receives a staff escort through the security gates. (In one city, that meant using a port-a-potty outside because the route to the indoor plumbing ran through the crowd.)

And the traveling press corps has been shut out of monitoring Obama's satellite interviews with local media outlets, which is a normal practice on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign.

On top of that, the traveling media has been tussling with Obama aides to keep conversations with the candidate on his campaign plane on the record."

@Cliff. That's a nice suggestion, but before the press will bring him donuts, he's got to hold a barbeque for them. Things just work like that. They respond real well to bribery.

The press has been ruined by partisanship in my opinion, and it seems to be hitting their bottom line hard. Most of them have lost their credibility. They are seen as party hacks rather than objective news people. In fact they keep hiring party hacks to pretend they are journalists.

If the press was still dedicated to it's own unique function in the world they would be much better off. I think their bottom line would be better. They would also understand when they are being greased for favorable coverage, and wouldn't let it color their reporting.

And I have known the breakfasts already, known them all—
Breakfasts that are fattening and syrupy and creviced
(But in the diner, delivered with excellent service!)
It is perfume from a dress
That makes me so digress?
Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a waffle.
And should I then presume?
And how should I begin?
. . . . .
Shall I say, WOULD YOU FREAKING TALK TO HAMAS??!

Oh, I forgot, (thanks for reminding me Cliff) every time the press shows their love for McCain by denigrating another candidate in comparison, I'm supposed to say:
DONUTS!

TomT:
That's one of the creepiest things I've read in awhile. G. Gordon Liddy waxing rhapsodic about GW's package.

So I guess if Obama aked reporters not to follow him into the bathroom, he'd just be acting elitist. "Maybe in the Ivy League, men don't stare at each other's wangs, but out here in Middle America...!"

Okay, I'll stop there.

Why is Obama asked about this Hamas/Carter issue, and not Hillary? Doesn't Carter belong to her party as well? It seems to me that Obama has to deal with a presumption of guilt on any issue associated with Mideast/Israel/anti-Semitism. And I will repeat: Ed Rendell is seen here glowingly praise Farrakhan. I will see if any of these MSM journalists ask her about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Great reporting JNS!

If i were Obama, I’ll ignore the national press till the end of the Primary fight. Obama should focus more on the local press.

The national press doesn't have anything to offer, in fact, Jon Stewart will do a better job than the moron following him around.

@johnr: Obama's a busy guy. Hillary's a busy gal.

What they should do is get an aide to go buy buckets of Whoppers and Big Macs and Wendy TripleBaconCheese Deathburgers, and then, as they walk through the airports and town halls, fling delicious hamburgers at the media dogs yapping at their heels.

I'd pay to see that.

If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation;

Hold on a minute. Your Swampland collegue Michael Scherer, who covers the McCain campaign, claims that McCain isn't that open, this "total access" thing is a misconception, and it's actually quite difficult to question McCain. Are you saying that Scherer was lying in an attempt to weasel out asking McCain the tough questions we want asked?

Alright, we just landed and I see I have quite a bit to respond to here. First: ivb: you got it right, my point is that Obama hasn't spoken to the press in 10 days and please don't tell me any of you are advocating limiting freedom of the press? Isn't more transparency good? Not everyone will ask ABC gotcha questions. Amazingly enough, occasionally a journalist or two even dreams up a thoughtful question. It's about access: you ask the press to cram up in front of you while you eat your waffle and banter friendly jokes with you, but God forbid anyone ask anything serious -- that's trying to have your cake (or waffle) and eat it too, you can't invite us in and then not expect people to ask questions.

Paul Dirks: I'm not issuing veiled threats, merely drawing a contrast with McCain. And I hardly consider pointing out the fact that he hasn't spoken to the national media in 10 days in a "hit piece" on Obama. I'm not impinging his character. The man is running for president there's a lot going on in the world. Personally, I'd like to ask him about today's record gas prices and ask him under what circumstances he’d open the petroleum reserve. I rarely yell questions at politicians and didn't in this case but my point is: I don't fault the journalist that did. Her frustrations are shared by most of his traveling press corps.

Elvis: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I do think expanded access to the media helps -- look at Congress. It's much easier to get a grasp of what's going on because journalists have access to wander the halls and grab members as they come and go. I haven't seen the full context of Karen's comment but I do believe that more access is always better than less.

Acid J: Does calling me a "douche" really do anything for anyone?
JNS

Let the man eat his waffle for God's sake, its not like he has anything of substance to offer anyways!!!

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!

Paul-no-not-that-one, I get the feeling you're mocking me...

Does calling me a "douche" really do anything for anyone?

I don't think he called you a "douche." He called the behavior of invading someone's space potentially douche-like. Like if I get hounded all day, and I just made it through a major network reading off the Drudge Report to me and calling it a debate, and I sit down to breakfast, I might ask people to let me eat breakfast. And I just might think it weird if someone treated it like a political scandal. I might think it a bigger scandal that the establishment press is getting its cues from Sean Hannity.

"The man is running for president there's a lot going on in the world."

Like people not wearing their lapel pins? Like people not being bitter?
Maybe that's another reason he's grouchy, because you lot have been hammering on him for stupid BS while the world is burning down to the ground.

"Personally, I'd like to ask him about today's record gas prices and ask him under what circumstances he’d open the petroleum reserve."

What good would that do? Seems like that would f--- up ANWAR and give the oil companies billions more for the sake of a few cents off of our gas. Would the reserves last long enough to allow us to green up the economy and pull away from the Middle East?
There - that's the question you should ask.

BTW, this is what I was talking about with Sean Hannity. You know, if I were a Democratic candidate for office, that might make me a bit disgruntled.

Echoing dwhite, please reconcile MS's telling readers how hard it is to ask a question of Senator McCain and your claim that McCain offers total access.
Both can't be true. Are you calling Michael a bad reporter?

Two things: "you ask the press to cram up in front of you while you eat your waffle and banter friendly jokes with you, but God forbid anyone ask anything serious." This was the whole premise of John McCain's BBQ. The difference was reporters got fed. Why didn't the guy just ask for a waffle too?

"Does calling me a "douche" really do anything for anyone?"

I didn't think you asked the Hamas question. But since you mention it, yes, I think you're fundamentally, constitutionally incapable of wielding the kind of authority you do with any responsibility. I reject the premise that I ought to have the same concerns you do or that you can speak to me with any expectation of sympathy. Your concerns are trifling.

I believe in a skeptical press that keeps the people informed about its interests and how government is or isn't meeting them. You are not that.

But J.J., according to the press (see Joe Klein), if candidates don't pretend like everything's f---ing great all the f---ing time, then they're Gloomy Gusses who won't get elected.

...while the world is burning down to the ground.

Ooops, you know, Cliff, that has to do with actual issues. You know we can't have that. The average American can't handle anything above the mentality of a high school cafeteria food fight. That's the best way to publically discuss such issues as war and peace, the environment, health care, etc.

Newton-Smith,

I'm sure the "button" was gonna be pushed at any second there, in middle-drip of the syrup down Obama's fork, and that reporter just HAD to know if he was ok with nuking Hamas, Jimmy Carter, and the whole Middle East!

Jeez...talk about a sense of entitlement! you MSM-types just are so out of touch with reality!!!

Journalists in general don’t relish asking politicians questions in awkward situations, like on a golf course or over a waffle. But sometimes our hands are forced: Obama hasn’t given a press conference in 10 days and the questions, some of them -- like Hamas -- rather important, are starting to build up.

JNS do you truly believe that on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary that SNOBama would ever open his mouth wide enough to insert his foot again, would entertain answering any specific questions?

The man is teetering on loosing what should have been an in-the-bag nomination 2 months ago. He will not cite any specifics, and will continue to dance around the issues as he has done for the past 15 months.

I can't believe you are surprised by any of this.

Maybe you guys can solve this waffle problem in song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dddvr9YJI8

"I believe in a skeptical press that keeps the people informed about its interests and how government is or isn't meeting them. You are not that." - AcidJ, but how is Obama wanting the press to cover his "regular guy" photo-ops and refusing to answer questions about the middle-east process and other substantive issues helping anything?

The Obama supporters on this thread who are both sharply criticizing the media and defending Obama's reluctance to address the issues that he will have to deal with as President are relying on very strained logic. Yes, the media often asks pointless and unfair questions, like in the last debate. But Obama is only making this situation worse by his decision to not answer reporters' questions for 10 days.

Honestly, every one who is supporting a candidate should take a minute and think up a list of all the things they don't like about the candidate they are supporting. It's not hard to think of a list for any of them and it may help bring a little fairness and common-sense to this process. No candidate is always in the right.

Jay, I am amazed you don't know how to do these things. Surely you realize that to get Johnny McCon's attention all you have to do is strip naked, cover yourself in cream and lie across his lap? Believe me, he'll lap it up. Barack on the other hand might actually think that breakfast is a time for eating, not for reporters.

Now, on the serious questions of the day: did you check that the Stars and Stripes pattern was clearly visible in his waffle? And were his flag pins facing towards Washington as you grovelled? Are you wearing a flag pin? Or does it get in the way of all that creamy goodness? C'mon, Jay, America needs those answers!

Rose, does that mean you think Hillary should discuss Rendell's glowing tributes to Farrakhan? How about an explanation of her differences with MoveOn? I don't see any answers coming out of all those Clinton press conferences.

I don't know, Rose. I agree I'm assuming Obama handles the press with competence, which may not be the case. Fair enough.

But Jay's complaint isn't that Obama hasn't answered the press's questions in 10 days. Obviously, there was the debate, to say nothing of the constant press entourage. Her complaint is that he hasn't invited them all to gather round and have at him--no doubt because he assumes they're chomping at the bit about William Ayers or something.

I'm still waiting for Jay to respond to our question about the conflict between her claim that McCain gives total access and answers any question and Michael's claim that McCain refuses to take questions from reporters.

One of you two is lying.

Jay, what motivation does Obama have to hold a press conference when all you'll do is ask him about Jimmy Carter, Bill Ayers, flag pins, Reverend Wright, and so on?

Seriously. You and your ilk serve no useful purpose anymore.

If only he were a straight shooting maverick like Saint McCain. Then the press would be presenting him with donuts and coffee.

If he would have ordered French Toast, the siren at Drudge would be flashing and Mark Halperin would get a woody.

George Step: I understand you prefer waffles?
O: George I don't plan breakfast: I eat what I feel I want at that time.

George Step: Are you related to Aunt Jemima? What do you think about America's history of slavery? Should you be eating Aunt Jemima's waffles? Is Aunt Jemima planning to vote for you?

Jay, does Rev Wright love America as much as you do?

Paul Dirks: It was my understanding that the access is pretty open on the McCain bus -- I haven't been on it in a while but when I've encountered McCain I can't recall a time when I've seen him decline to answer a reporter's question. Scherer may have had a different experience and things may have changed now that he's the nominee. But relatively, I think you'd be hard pressed to find 10 days McCain went without speaking to the press.... JNS

AcidJ, there's a logical inconsistency in saying that the ABC debate was unfair and trivial (which it was) and then claiming the debate counts as answering reporters' questions. It was an awful debate that completely ignored many of the most substantive issues, and even on the very few occasions when the moderators chose an important topic, only a very small amount of time was spent actually talking about the topic. He needs to answer questions on the substantive issues; the whole flag-pin/accessorizing issue has been well covered but there are some other things - things that actually effect voters - that Obama needs to address. And the petroleum reserve and Hamas are real issues.

But Jon Stewart makes my point much better than I do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCfmVN1lAg

"Rose, does that mean you think Hillary should discuss Rendell's glowing tributes to Farrakhan? How about an explanation of her differences with MoveOn? I don't see any answers coming out of all those Clinton press conferences." - nickzi, yes that sounds fair. I want all the candidates held to higher standards, and if sometimes that involves interrupting their breakfasts, they can live with it.

Let the man eat, for heaven's sake! And stop whining. You gladly signed up for this job, bragged to all of your friends and family when you got it and now you're offended when someone won't let you interrupt their breakfast.

Rose said:
"Honestly, every one who is supporting a candidate should take a minute and think up a list of all the things they don't like about the candidate they are supporting."

Good call, Rose. I'll take some time to think about that one, since I can't think of 10 right off the top of my head.
But here's one:
His devout faith. Or at least, the appearance of such.
Yeah, it bothers me, just as Hillary and McCain's faith bothers me. We already have a Bible thumper in the office, and he's surrounded by others like him, and I fear they are the figureheads of a movement that aims to turn America into Jesus's kingdom.

If Obama could simply say, "Yeah, I go to church, what?" that would be great. But he has to express deep, personal, relevatory commitment to the Bible in order to get votes, and I don't like that whether it's true or false.

"(E)njoy a waffle breakfast"

Yeah, a little hard to do when surrounded by the spolied little children who otherwise go by the name of "the media" in our modern world.

Go ahead, Jay, you and Halperin and the rest of whiny babies in the press keep reporting on crap like this. I'll bet that 98% of the voters in PA - you know, the state where Obama is campaigning, the state that holds a primary tomorrow - will say upon reading silliness like this, "And why, pray tell, is Hamas a concern to me? What about the economy? What about jobs?" And they'll be right. I'll bet internal Israeli politics rank about dead last on the list of concerns of small town PA voters. Yet in your never-ending quest for some gotcha moment that the media elites can opine over on the Sunday shows - much to their self-satisfied delight - you (and by "you", I mean the media, in general) ignore the questions that most Pennsylvanians (ie - the people Obama rightly focused on speaking with at that diner) - most Americans - would like to hear the candidates answer.

Did the follow-up involve flag-pins?

On Halperin right now, I kid you not:

Obama resists questions from the press.

McCain serenaded by quilters in Alabama.

People, we're screwed. Our only hope is that a meteor will hit Washington and wipe the entire press corps out. Even, the ones in Scranton right now would survive and that would probably be enough to doom us.

Wasn't there a debate thingy last week, where the candidates took questions from a couple of reporters? And I think that was less than ten days ago, too.

my point is that Obama hasn't spoken to the press in 10 days and please don't tell me any of you are advocating limiting freedom of the press? Isn't more transparency good?

Kind of depends on what you mean by "transparency," doesn't it? If "transparency" means "honesty," then yes, we all want our candidates to be honest and their campaigns to be completely open to public scrutiny.

On the other hand, if you're equating "transparency" with "access," which it seems to me is what you're doing, then John McCain is the most "transparent" politician in the country. And as a result, he's able to spin your compatriots in the media like a top, so that they won't report a damned negative thing about him unless it also comes with a special media-generated apology excusing McCain from the negativity. In that case, I'd say no, transparency isn't good. It seems to keep you from doing your actual jobs.

The real point to take away from this is that when Obama wants to eat breakfast, he's going to have reporters shouting gotcha questions at him, the same tired "EXPLAIN THE ACTIONS OF THIS OTHER PERSON TO OUR SATISFACTION OR ELSE!" crap that he gets about William Ayers and the rest. When McCain wants to eat breakfast, in contrast, he's going to have reporters bringing it to him.

And we can expect that behavior to go on right up to Election Day. Woo-hoo.

Here's a question:

If the press corps bus plunged over the cliff, who would miss them more?

a)The American people

b) John McCain

c) John McCain

Do you need more than 30 seconds to answer this? If so, you really ought to vote for:

a) John McCain

b) John McCain

c) George Bush's third term

Rose, if the debate doesn't count as answering questions, I don't know what does.

And let's not pretend this Hamas question was of any vital importance. When it comes down to it, it's just another gotcha. OMG! Obama would/wouldn't talk to Hamas! Just because the word Hamas is in there doesn't make the question or the potential answer very important.

When it comes even further down to it, let's not pretend Jay Newton-Small is doing anyone any favors by complaining about a lack of access. Where have these complaints been for 7 years? Dick Cheney would sooner shoot a guy's face off than talk to the press, but it never mattered. Now suddenly Jay Newton-Small is Michael Moore? There's just nothing convincing me in this whole scenario that there's any legitimate grievance.

I'll criticize Obama up and down, fine. This is not one of those times.

Amen, TomT. Obama's "resisting." If he doesn't watch out, he's gonna get tased! What a collective of douches TIME is.

Thanks for hanging around and responding to comments in a hostile thread, Jay.

Paul Dirks, I read the stuff you bold to mean that if Obama isn't available to the press, then they'll shout at him when he wants to eat a waffle and get his picture taken with a senator. That's not really the worst thing I've ever heard.

As always, it's the context that matters. Everyone on this thread expects the media to fashion a new narrative, about how Obama is too elitist to interrupt his breakfast, or whatever. As a post on the Swampland blog, I think it's 100% unobjectionable.

FWIW, I don't really think it's a worthwhile question. I think it's asked out of a hope to embarrass him, by caricaturing his Reagan-like policy of talking to leaders we don't like as some kind of appeasement. Presumably the follow-up would be about Ayers, and the next one would be about Wright.

Running for president means answering some annoying questions, but everyone thinks McCain and the White House are getting a free ride while the media flips out about flag pins and scary black men giving sermons.

Elvis, I can't speak for the others who are angered by this post, but my problem really isn't so much with Obama. He should be answering questions from the media and, if they can't get him to do it in a formal way, then they've got to try to catch him at other times. My problem is the contrast with McCain, who gives this supposed "unlimited" access that's really about convincing the press that he's a super awesome dude so that they'll buy his spin on everything and simply refuse to do any negative reporting about him or his policies or his record. The fact that one candidate gives access and one doesn't shouldn't influence the media's treatment of those candidates.

If, say, Al Capone were running for president against Mother Theresa, and Capone gave the clowns in the Washington press corps full media access while Mother Theresa refused to talk to them, I really do believe that we'd get a bunch of stories about what a great guy Al is and what a devious jerk Mother Theresa is. These folks aren't doing their jobs so much as they're expecting to be pandered to and then creating narratives based on how well their expectations are met.

If the press corps bus plunged over the cliff, who would miss them more?

Not sure, but I do know that this would be bad news for Democrats.

"If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation"

Simple declarative sentence.

"It was my understanding that the access is pretty open on the McCain bus -- I haven't been on it in a while but when I've encountered McCain I can't recall a time when I've seen him decline to answer a reporter's question. Scherer may have had a different experience and things may have changed now that he's the nominee. "

Needs translation. "I guess he doesn't. I really don't know"

Since it wasn't in the post,I'll assume that both Hillary and old man John were eagerly answering questions over breakfast this morning. Did they talk with food in their mouth? I need to know because we can't have a President who's crass and a boor during state dinners. Well, not the new one anyway.
Did either of them respond vis-a-vis Hamas,the elected government?
By the way, what did Jimmy Carter have for breakfast?

As for comparing Obama's relationship with the press to McCain's, I think Bob Somersby has the correct perspective here:

"Why can John McCain gab so freely as he rides around on his bus? Let’s go back to Campaign 2000, when this glorious joy-ride began; let’s recall what made it so easy for McCain to blab back then. Perhaps in the grip of the “Stockholm Syndrome” which Joe Klein attributed to McCain’s press corps, Nancy Gibbs blurted an embarrassing truth, right in the pages of Time:

GIBBS (12/13/99): There is no entourage, no bubble of staff members around him...And then there are the stories he tells—to which, if there's a pattern, it's to exalt other people and deflate himself. A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing. The candor tells you more than the content, and reporters sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they don't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story.

...

According to Time’s top political writer, the boys and girls who were munching his donuts had cooked up a strange bit of journo group culture. When McCain engaged in too much “candor,” they would “sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they didn't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story!” Let’s translate that into simpler language: At the same time these inane gorillas were inventing wild statements and pretending Gore said them, they were providing an opposite service for McCain, the virile scourge of the broken screen door. Here goes: If McCain said stupid things, they would agree not to tell you about them! For the record, Gibbs and Dickerson weren’t alone in copping to this remarkable conduct; many pundits copped to this tale. For example, two days after the Gibbs piece hit the stands, Howard Kurtz quoted Jacob Weisberg:

KURTZ (12/8/99): "At one level, the press protects him," says Jacob Weisberg, political writer for Slate magazine. "He delivers these stupid lines all the time. The typical response from journalists is either not to report it or to congratulate him for being so blunt...”

...

At any rate, it isn’t hard to drop all the stage-managed stuff if you know that the “journalists” you’re stuffing with donuts won’t report the unfortunate things you might say.

...

Why didn’t Gore freewheel like McCain? (By extension, why don’t Clinton and Obama?) Could it be because of this: When Gore made a passing remark about Love Story—a passing remark which was perfectly accurate—the slobbering goons for whom Lizza covers turned it into a three-year “scandal?” Surely, every scribe understands these dynamics (for historical context, see links below). They just don’t want you understanding them.

At any rate, Gibbs and Dickerson were riding around, “taking McCain off the record” when he displayed too much “candor.” And other courtesies were extended to this greatest of known living men. During that same month, for example, McCain unveiled his comically bollixed “health plan;” he had to withdraw it the very next day, so ineptly had it been drawn (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/19/06). But so what? Everyone knew to downplay the embarrassment—and the bus-capade joy-ride continued apace. McCain gave them their donuts and said they were smart—and they kept explaining how wondrous he was. More than anything, of course, he was a straight-talker—except when he made such straight remarks that they knew they mustn’t report them.

It's about access: you ask the press to cram up in front of you while you eat your waffle and banter friendly jokes with you, but God forbid anyone ask anything serious -- that's trying to have your cake (or waffle) and eat it too, you can't invite us in and then not expect people to ask questions.

As someone else already pointed out, this is exactly what happens with McCain all the time, as your colleague Ana Marie Cox can attest to. That was the entire point of the McCain BBQ, eating ribs while not asking serious questions, not recording and not taking pictures.

Yes, it is all about access -- which is a huge part of the problem. As we've heard time and time again, most reporters value access so much they are willing to trade away good journalism to maintain it.

As for comparing Obama's relationship with the press to McCain's, I think Bob Somersby has the correct perspective here:

"Why can John McCain gab so freely as he rides around on his bus? Let’s go back to Campaign 2000, when this glorious joy-ride began; let’s recall what made it so easy for McCain to blab back then. Perhaps in the grip of the “Stockholm Syndrome” which Joe Klein attributed to McCain’s press corps, Nancy Gibbs blurted an embarrassing truth, right in the pages of Time:

GIBBS (12/13/99): There is no entourage, no bubble of staff members around him...And then there are the stories he tells—to which, if there's a pattern, it's to exalt other people and deflate himself. A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing. The candor tells you more than the content, and reporters sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they don't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story.

...

According to Time’s top political writer, the boys and girls who were munching his donuts had cooked up a strange bit of journo group culture. When McCain engaged in too much “candor,” they would “sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they didn't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story!” Let’s translate that into simpler language: At the same time these inane gorillas were inventing wild statements and pretending Gore said them, they were providing an opposite service for McCain, the virile scourge of the broken screen door. Here goes: If McCain said stupid things, they would agree not to tell you about them! For the record, Gibbs and Dickerson weren’t alone in copping to this remarkable conduct; many pundits copped to this tale. For example, two days after the Gibbs piece hit the stands, Howard Kurtz quoted Jacob Weisberg:

KURTZ (12/8/99): "At one level, the press protects him," says Jacob Weisberg, political writer for Slate magazine. "He delivers these stupid lines all the time. The typical response from journalists is either not to report it or to congratulate him for being so blunt...”

...

At any rate, it isn’t hard to drop all the stage-managed stuff if you know that the “journalists” you’re stuffing with donuts won’t report the unfortunate things you might say.

...

Why didn’t Gore freewheel like McCain? (By extension, why don’t Clinton and Obama?) Could it be because of this: When Gore made a passing remark about Love Story—a passing remark which was perfectly accurate—the slobbering goons for whom Lizza covers turned it into a three-year “scandal?” Surely, every scribe understands these dynamics (for historical context, see links below). They just don’t want you understanding them.

At any rate, Gibbs and Dickerson were riding around, “taking McCain off the record” when he displayed too much “candor.” And other courtesies were extended to this greatest of known living men. During that same month, for example, McCain unveiled his comically bollixed “health plan;” he had to withdraw it the very next day, so ineptly had it been drawn (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/19/06). But so what? Everyone knew to downplay the embarrassment—and the bus-capade joy-ride continued apace. McCain gave them their donuts and said they were smart—and they kept explaining how wondrous he was. More than anything, of course, he was a straight-talker—except when he made such straight remarks that they knew they mustn’t report them.

Sorry for the double-post.

Here's another instructive post from Somerby on McCain's relationship with the press:

"And, even as reporters kept saying that McCain would talk till they ran out of questions, a wide range of questions never seemed to get asked aboard that famous bus. During this period, McCain was openly lying about both Bush and Gore, and later about his own campaign practices—but reporters somehow never seemed to question such things. Beyond that, his policy blunders were virtually endless, as became clear if you read all the profiles—but reporters failed to put them together. And wouldn’t you know it? It seems that a childish group dynamic had been developing on the bus. Late in the game, Dana Milbank, on Reliable Sources, constructively blabbed about this:

MILBANK (2/19/00): It will probably be a nice thing if we could be looking at the issues now. I spent a week on McCain's bus up until earlier this week, and the reporter—I think it was from USA Today—actually apologized before asking a policy question, apologized to the other reporters. Everybody groaned, you know, in an exaggerated sense.

Kill the pig! At any rate, the Chicago Tribune’s Jim Warren was on this same program. He’d seen the peer pressure too:

WARREN: Dana, if you want to see people groan, you should see them in back of the McCain bus when I start engaging him on the subject of U.S. policy toward Rwanda.

U.S. policy toward Rwanda was for squares!

...

Don’t you get a whiff of rerun when you read this passage from his profile? Here’s a quick hint about life on the bus in New Hampshire, just this year:

LIZZA (2/25/08): Conversations on the Straight Talk are not always about McCain’s views on Iraq or tax reform or, really, substantive issues of any kind. Rather, the scene consists of long stretches of banter punctuated by short, intense discussions of politics and policy. A rotating cast of characters—the loyalists who have stuck with him, some without pay—provide comic relief and distraction when McCain becomes bored or wants to change the subject.

Huh! Stretches of banter were long, Lizza said—and policy discussions were short! "

10 whole days and he hasn't asnwered questions from the press!!

Well, guess what? We, the People, don't care if he ever answers a question from the press!!

Our next President's only job is to be responsive to the People of this country. It is not to run Iraq. It is not to coddle to Europe, and it DARN sure isn't to suck up to the PRESS!

We, the People, are facing an Iraq crisis, budget crisis, health-care crisis, and a housing crisis. We don't care what the Press thinks!!

A few questions...

1) How regularly do Clinton and McCain do pressers, if we're judging press access solely on that measure.

2) As far as press access, I could swear Obama got grilled by the press a week or so ago at the AP conference.

3) At the same conference, he got his name mixed up with Osama's and ground on hard, while McCain, after treading dangerously close to calling the press corp treasonous, got treated with Coffee and Donuts in an utterly reverent manner.

Is it any wonder that Obama isn't exactly eager to deal with a press so obviously in the tank for someone already despite his obvious contempt for them?

FastEddie at 8:21 PM

"On the other hand, if you're equating "transparency" with "access," which it seems to me is what you're doing, then John McCain is the most "transparent" politician in the country. And as a result, he's able to spin your compatriots in the media like a top, so that they won't report a damned negative thing about him unless it also comes with a special media-generated apology excusing McCain from the negativity. In that case, I'd say no, transparency isn't good. It seems to keep you from doing your actual jobs."

Good Point. I think the language JNS uses here points out the problems that arise when reporters get too comfortable with politicians. McCain is familiar to reporters and whatever gaffes he makes, or his character flaws, can be explained away because they are willing to give him the benefit of doubt because of their familiarity. It is a natural thing. When she writes "transparency" she really means that McCain is transparent to her because she sees him as a human being who won't act from ulterior motives.

Politicians who are aloof from the press get viewed with suspicion because of it. When they make mistakes they get attributed to character flaws that show they act from unclear motives. I think this post is a great example of it. JNS is very skeptical about Obama's not wanting to answer the question. If it was McCain, he would have answered the question and what the answer was doesn't matter
because any old answer is good enough because it means the politician is listening to the press. As long as a politician listens to the press, then the press will parrot the politician.

I think John McCain understands this very well and that he has cultivated it for political gain. Which means he is acting with an ulterior motive, which is how every politician operates anyway. It's too bad the editors at Time can't find some reporters who understand this to cover McCain.

Congrats JNS you now have Tbogg making jokes about you.

Wow.

I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry over what passes for substantive journalism and commentary here.

Just.... wow.

One thing to think about, Jay: I think what you're doing is assigning Obama a motive for not talking to the press. He's selfish. He's not giving you access.

But could there be a *good* motive for him not talking to the press? That motive might be that just about every contact with the press he's had lately is about dirt. Sure, that dirt is bad for his candidacy, but it's also a bats**t insane way to run our public discourse. (Remember, this is a theme he mentions in just about every speech.)

Imagine, we're judging the people who make decisions about war and peace, avoiding a dangerously degraded environment, and life and death matters such as health care, based on whether they wear a freakin lapel pin and "love the flag." Or whether they showed up at meetings and certain controversial people also showed up. That's insane.

If I were Obama, and the press kept harping on these things, I wouldn't want to feed them anything about these stories either. Because they're a hell of a way to conduct discourse about the future of the country. I don't blame him. If I were him, I would wait until the PA primary was over to talk to people who were drooling to write about what my pastor said on one or two days several years ago, or what some semi-random discontented person thinks of my lack of a lapel pin.

@Bryan: I know the sentiment, but it's not reasonable. It's a symbiotic relationship for the candidates and the press; without either, they both lose relevance. And, unfortunately, it would be bad for us all.

So, yeah, much as I'd like to collectively whack these boneheads with stale donuts - leftovers from McSame's bus? - they are, in fact, necessary. I think they just need to be tweaked a little, to be more useful.

However, as a "Joe Sixpack voter" who's leaning toward Clinton, even _I'm_ disappointed that the press treats Obama this way. C'mon, guys: play fair. Do you just wait for him to take a bite and then bark at him? Do you get close-ups where the syrup dribbles down his chin? Tsk...

"Good call, Rose. I'll take some time to think about that one, since I can't think of 10 right off the top of my head.
But here's one:
His devout faith. Or at least, the appearance of such.
Yeah, it bothers me, just as Hillary and McCain's faith bothers me. We already have a Bible thumper in the office, and he's surrounded by others like him, and I fear they are the figureheads of a movement that aims to turn America into Jesus's kingdom."

Cliff, I absolutely agree with you. It's scary to see how widely accepted the blending of religion and government is. Although I have some sympathy with Clinton and Obama because both Gore and Kerry were hurt by losing the Evangelical Christian vote. But I think this goes way beyond modifying the way you present your message to appeal to more voters in the GE. I'm okay with the fact that Obama now wears a tie, presumably because it makes him look older and more experienced. And I don't have a problem with Clinton (probably) pretending to like football, when I imagine she really has no interest in the sport. But the blending of religion and government is borderline unconstitutional. And after Teri Schiavo and the disastrous allocation of AIDS funding in Africa, I think both Obama and Clinton could make that case to a lot of voters, including some Evangelicals.

"And after Teri Schiavo and the disastrous allocation of AIDS funding in Africa, I think both Obama and Clinton could make that case to a lot of voters, including some Evangelicals."

Or at least address the fact that some of the prevailing religious sentiment in this nation has caused a lot of harm.

I don't expect people to divorce themselves from their faith when they get into office, and I'm fine if they use their beliefs to inform their morality - faith can be a powerful tool that way when used right.

But I'm afraid, when Hillary and Obama express their deep, profound, unshakeable faith, that they will mutate that into a blank check from Heaven and march us off the deep end. Again.

Hillary's talks about nuclear retaliation on Iran and all you can talk about is waffles. AMAZING!

Two other details are missing from this discussion. First of all, when I was in the bank the CNN promo for Glenn Beck was all about Jimmy Carter having "crossed the line" in "talking to terrorists"

Clearly the folks who are most likely be looking to attack the candidate will see the Carter trip as an opening.

Secondly, as is clear from the MSNBC coverage of the same incident, Obama has already addressed the issue at length and taken the standard "no negotiation with terrorist organization" stands that are of course required of anyone running for President.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/21/927731.aspx

Reuters coverage of the incident also includes this bit of info:

Reporters traveling with the Illinois senator, fighting with his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton over Pennsylvania ahead of its vote on Tuesday, are venting frustration over a lack of access to the candidate lately. Obama has not held a press availability in 10 days, though he has given dozens of interviews to local press in Pennyslvania

So when JNS says "the questions, some of them -- like Hamas -- rather important, are starting to build up." she simply means that the local press is getting the good stuff and she's feeling left out. And as I said earlier, she's more than willing to take it out on the candidate with her posts here.

Maybe he just wanted to eat his waffle while it was hot?

> Maybe he just wanted to eat his waffle while it was hot?

While there may be an element of truth to this, don't be so naive. There _has_ to be more to it.

I mean, c'mon: MSM has to push ads. How would it look if all they could publish was, "Members of the media waited patiently while Obama ate his breakfast." That doesn't fly nearly as dramatically as, "CANDIDATE REFUSES TO TALK TO REPORTERS!1! COULD THIS BE THE APOCALYPSE??!1won"

I'm reminded of an old Bloom County cartoon where Milo notices a Sears catalog on Senator Bedfellow's stoop, leading to cries of "Girdlegate! Bark bark!"