Is the Honeymoon Over?

From his stunning upset victory in the Iowa Caucuses at the start of the presidential primaries, throughout the election campaign, and in the first hundred days of his term in office, the media treated Barack Obama like a rock star and handled him with kid gloves. He acknowledged as much when he spoke at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner earlier this month. "Why bother hanging out with celebrities when I can spend time with the people who made me one?" he said with a broad smile, and then added, "I know where my bread is buttered."

But less than two weeks later, after a White House press conference with many of the same correspondents who had attended the dinner, Obama may have decided to go back to celebrities. The journalists, targeting his responses to the demonstrations in Iran, challenged the president sharply, and he responded in kind. The New York Times report of the event was titled, "At Air-Conditioned News Conference, Obama Feels the Heat." The Washington Post said it "wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama." A YouTube mash-up video called it "Obama's Testy Press Conference."

The transcript of the session tracked the testiness of the crossfire.

Major Garrett of Fox News fired the first shot, "In your opening remarks, sir, you were--you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long to say those words?"

Obama shot right back, "I don't think that's accurate." And then, frowning at Garrett, he scolded, "Track what I've been saying. Right after the election, I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was."

Chip Reid of CBS News who, as you read in my prior blog, posed a false assumption question in Obama's first press conference, came back at him again in this session, "Some republicans on Capitol Hill--John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example--have said that up to this point, your response on Iran has been timid and weak. Today, it sounded a lot stronger...Were you influenced at all by John McCain and Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid and weak?"

Here Obama did not return the fire. Instead, he broke into a smile and said, "What do you think?" His response brought a wave of laughter from the crowded room, but then he turned serious and said, "Look, the--I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues, and I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail. But only I'm the President of the United States, and I've got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests."

Chuck Todd of NBC News turned the heat back up, "Mr. President, I want to follow up on Iran," he snapped, punctuating his words with his right hand holding a pen, almost poking it at Obama. "You have avoided twice spelling out consequences. You've hinted that there would be, from the international community, if they continue to violate--you said violate these norms. You seem to hint that there are human rights violations taking place."

Todd's words, voice, body language, and undoubtedly his pen turned Obama "prickly," as the New York Times' Maureen Dowd reported. "I'm not hinting," Obama said sternly, glowering at Todd. "I think that when a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car, that's a problem."

Todd shot right back, "Then why won't you spell out the consequences that the Iranian..."

Obama cut him off. "Because I think, Chuck, that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out." His voice steely, Obama added, "I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not."

Todd would not give up, "But shouldn't--I mean, shouldn't the world and Iran..."

Obama cut him off again, "Chuck, I answered..."

Todd kept going, "... but shouldn't the Iranian regime know that there are consequences?"

Obama cut him off for a third time, "I answered the question, Chuck, which is that we don't yet know how this is going to play out."

After such heated exchanges, how are Obama's relations with his former idolaters going to play out? Is the honeymoon over?

Comments

[BuzzingAlong]

So just what is your point? You still have Cheney.

[baddadd49]

matthews olberman and madow are still fawning, and lets not forget the abc infomercial.the msm is SO in the tank for obama, you HAVE to go o FOX if you want any criical news on he newbie as you won find anyhing critical on msnbc,cnn, abc,nbc,or cbs.face facts libs your blinded by your idol and suck in your cult of personality. Watch some footage from he campiagn and right afer and watch all you drones chanting in unison and you will see my words are true, that is if your honest.

[NotStarvingArtist]

Maddow is not fawning. She has called Obama out several times on campaign promises not yet kept, especially those related to Don't Ask Don't Tell. I voted for Obama, and I am disappointed in some of his decisions (or lack thereof), but I am still willing to give him some time. After all, he is not God. He cannot just wave his hand and have things magically happen. The wheels of government turn slowly sometimes. I know its been said a lot lately, but it is still true that his plate has been awfully full for these first few months of his Presidency. Few new Presidents have had so many dire and urgent issues to handle this early in their administration. I think he's done remarkably well so far and I'm willing to give him some time to address the issues he hasn't gotten to yet.

[NotStarvingArtist]

At least we were chanting "Yes, we can". The Republican's were chanting something hateful and racist in many cases.

[londongal]

What? Fawning media? Where?

I watched the press conference and quite frankly, I thought President Obama handled the questions very well and appropriately.

The notion of a fawning media has nothing to do with the President--it's up to journalists to do their homework, ask the right questions and stop trying to be the latest "Gotcha" guru!

Oh, and please stop using the word "idolaters"--it's intellectually dishonest. The journalists I saw at that press conference did not appear to be idolizing President Obama, that goes for Garrett, Todd and the rest. People like yourself continually perpetuate this false notion because you don't like the fact that he's popular.

The President will not be judged on his popularity status but his policies and how they have affected America.

Get off it already!

[bowthai]

Your reference to the Correspondents' Dinner is a bit misleading. His comment was clearly made in jest, a poke at the perceived reality not the actual reality. The man understands well the perception of a soft press and therefore made a joke about that perception.

Additionally, I think this article is precisely the type of non-story that perpetuates the idea of a fawning press and some dramatic end to the love affair between the White House and the media. The exchanges you present here seem to only emphasize the inanity and incompetence of the press. I don't see the president acting unreasonably or out of step with his campaign persona. His answers are just as measured as they have been all along. Perhaps the absence of campaign distractions is a reason for the focus on these supposedly terse exchanges.

[valkyrie607]

The media is once again parroting right wing Fox News talking points. Something new and different. Yay.

There are so many better things for the media to grill Obama about--state secrets privilege assertion in civil lawsuits, continuing torture at Bagram, why single payer health care is "off the table" when a majority of Americans support it--but instead they choose to grill him about this. John McCain's spaz du jour.

Feh.

[allonfla]

In addition, I have no sympathy for the press. I enjoy it when they get smacked up by the President, even Bush and especially my mayor Michael Bloomberg. You can't call the press inept and then defend them when a politician pushes back.

[allonfla]

There is a big misconception that the press is in love with Obama because they have shown time and time again that any hint of corruption is cause for them to headline with : What Did He Know And When Did He Know It. Not one month into his Presidency and the press was ready to say that Obama was involved in Pay to Play politics. Even suggesting that Rahm Emanuel was heavily involved. This coming from a press that worships Obama? I don't think so.

Also, that question that Chuck Todd asked was really dumb and no President would be stupid enough to answer that question. He knows Obama is trying to downplay his criticisms of Ahmandinejad and Chucky wants the POTUS to spell out consequences? What consequences Chuck? are you kidding?

[londongal]

Allonfla:

I agree with you that Todd's question was quite simply, DUMB! There is no way the President could spell out what the consequences would be for Iran--no way. First, it is too soon, and second the UN as watchdog of the nations should be the one to publicly spell out consequences. They haven't yet done that because it's not wise to do so at this time.

Cowboy diplomacy is officially dead in America. And good riddance!

[andrewbown]

No Chuck Todd's question was not dumb, It was calculated to try and make Obama make statements that would undermine his goal and purpose. These news hounds are very smart and when their cover is blown by the President they react very aggressively in their respective news outlets. They knew Obama was smart but they didn't know to what extent his political gamesman ship was until they noticed the smile on Rahm's face while they were getting their Journalstic plows cleaned at that press conference.
Obama wants good press, but he's not going to kiss butt to get it. If these guys were only this good 8 years ago we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

[allonfla]

There. Was. Never. A. Honeymoon. Ever.

[maryfrost2]

Yes, I think that President Obama's honeymoon is over. I'd bet money that he would not get elected if the election was today. We all did want change--but we hoped that Obama would know that we meant a change for the better---seems I was wrong. We are headed totally in the wrong direction, and I'm very much afraid that too many of us will not wake up until it's too late.

[allonfla]

There was a poll done recently that showed Obama winning with over 52% of the votes when put up against the most likely GOP canidates.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-obama-leads-big-gop-names-for-2012.php

[BuzzingAlong]

You still have a chance. Good luck with it.

It Came from Wasilla (Vanity Fair) comments from McCain campaigh staffers:

"there is ultimately no way to read McCain’s selection of Palin as reflecting anything other than an
appalling egotism, heedlessness, and lack of judgment in a man whose courage, tenacity, and character they have extravagantly admired—and as reflecting, too, an unsettling willingness on their own part to aid and abet him. They all know that if their candidate—a 72-year-old cancer survivor—had won the presidency, the vice-presidency would be in the hands of a woman who lacked the knowledge, the preparation, the aptitude, and the temperament for the job".

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/sarah-palin200908?currentPage=5

[NotStarvingArtist]

You would lose your money!

[eciaccio]

There never should be a "honeymoon" in the first place with ANY President if the media are truly filling their role in a democracy.

But our Fawning Corporate Media (as Ray McGovern correctly refers to them) care little about investigating and reporting the truth, which often means confronting power. The media are a huge part of why we no longer have a true democracy here (representing people, not corporations), so anything they now do, especially after their deplorable, shameful performance (the appropriate word) during the Bush/Cheney regime, is neither surprising nor disappointing. They are a corporate business/industry, just as "health" insurance is, so they will always sell out for profit over principle.

[maryfrost2]

I agree with eciaccio's comment above, the fawning media will not investigate ACORN, even though there are many allegations of corruption. The whistleblowers that worked, and some are still working in the org., are telling anyone that will listen, of the many problems, but the Democrats are not interested. John Conyers (D) first said that they did need to be investiged, but later changed his mind. An Insp. Gen. , Mr. Walprin, was given one hr. to leave his position, because he was investigation misuse of the TARP money, by a Mr. Johnson--a friend and campaign contributor of President Obama. Now, I'd like to know the facts on both of these cases, but you do not hear about them on the major media stations---Why not I wonder??? If President Obama wants to stick to his promise that there would be no waste in the TARP and stimulus money, then find out if the charge is true that Mr. Johnson did, indeed, misuse taxpayers money--I, for one, would like to know--would you??????????????

[Charmed]

maryfrost2....I'm sure hannity and fox has you as informed as you wish to be.