Posted on 03/04/2008 5:48:04 AM PST by jdm
Today in San Antonio, MSNBC describes a surprisingly contentious Barack Obama news conference that focused on Tony Rezko and the Canadian government:
“Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.
Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.”
Obama cut off questions from one Chicago-based NBC reporter, implying her questions were personally motivated (apparently because he did not grant her a one-on-one interview). In response to continued Rezko questions by other reporters, Obama suggested his prior responses should suffice:
“He claimed that his campaign would be happy to provide the details, but when asked why the campaign hadn’t been forthcoming, he said, “What happens is these requests I think can go on forever, and, at some point, we’ve tried to respond to what’s pertinent to the question that’s been raised.”
He added, “There’s no question that he raised money for us, and there’s no dispute that we’ve tried to get rid of that money.”
The Politico noticed the change in atmosphere, too, although its focus was on the controversy involving the Obama campaign and the Canadian government. Obama “continued to deny the substance of the conversation” between the Canadian government and Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, instead blaming the controversy on Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy:
“I know the Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a kitchen sink strategy. … It doesn’t change the facts.”
Obama left the press conference after delivering what was described as a curt response to his eighth question. The MSNBC report stated and the Politico confirmed that the “press erupted with shouts, but Obama continued to walk out,” suggesting that the days of Obama’s positive press may be numbered.
why, so we win by tearing the other guy down ? - I’d rather win based on decent philosophy
Thanks for posting. This is good news.
If Obama’s fortunes have taken a turn, it’s the eleventh-hour Tonya Harding gambit by the Beast.
They both answer questions just like all Dems - talk around it and NEVER NEVER answer the question that was asked.
As do their suppporters when asked simple questions like ‘name one legislative accomplishment....’
Got to love it.
If Republicans cross over to save Hillary’s ass today, we’ll have one more reason to call the GOP the stupid party.
On that note, its amazing how the media will no longer do real investigative work into the background of this iconoclast because they are afraid that access will be denied to his campaign. Thank God for the blogosphere, Internet, and talk radio.
No, but all politicians have to answer these questions, and show they have the ability to handle the pressure. Obama has been exempt from this, and he should not be. This is candy compared to what he will face if he is in the White House.
This mini-scandal is not going to sink Obama, but it may take him off his pedestal down to the level of his opponents.
What on earth are you talking about? Lying to the press and refusing to answer questions about his associations with corrupt people aren’t ‘issues?’
Not yet! Its too soon! The beast must be disposed of first.
It is his own arrogance that will do him in. He has started to actually believe he is the “Messiah” as evidenced by his reference to the Sermon On The Mount to justify his support for civil unions for gay couples. The guy has never been challenged the whole campaign by the MSM and it is enlightening to see how he is reacting.
Don’t miss the video of him walking out, either. Watch how angry one woman in the press is with him:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rbkhzsTwz_g
Hillary is probably a more accurate encapsulation of the values of today's Republican Party than McCain is: a vain, Machiavellian, Big Government-loving, spendthrift, interventionist, political hack with inadequacy issues.
There's no substitute.
Pushing Clinton in TX and OH is the same Republican idiocy that gave us the 2006 election... and McCain as our 2008 nominee.
Obama had been teaching and preaching throughout the countryside around America for some time, when he decided to return to his hometown of Chicago.
He had been well-received everywhere he went, with crowds of people following him, hanging on every word.
The people of Chicago had known him since he was a small boy, and they did not want to admit that he had grown up to be someone special
On another website this was contrasted with McCain’s most recent press conference where he took every question asked until there were no more questions (36 in all) and twice asked the reporters whether they had anything more to ask. Obama has a history of being press-unfriendly and once the Obamabubble bursts (it may happen today) the coverage will be increasingly hostile.
This reminds me of the behavior of Hillary last year that eventually resulted in her getting knocked on her ass.
He thinks he’s invincible and untouchable: he believes a victory in the election is something he is OWED.
Voters don’t tend to like candidates with a sense of entitlement.
You’re exactly right!
How dare they question Obama! Heh.
Please tell me what type of negative press did Hillary Clinton get so far? Did they talk about Norman Hsu and other financial scandals? How about all her flip flops on the war? How about her sexual orientation? How about her husband sexual adventures from 2001-2008?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.