Reporter challenges Obama's account of Q&A

What a bunch of spin. Why would a Tribune paper like Newsday lie to us?

At last...A story with real teeth. Did or didn't Obama hear a question about one of the most pressing issues of the decade. Gays. Thank god we no longer have to deal with the trivial stories of did or didn't the president mislead the country on the reasons to invade Iraq.

Nothing new here,just more flip-flopping from the democratic contenders.
This country is at war,do you really want either one of these two at the helm....I think not.

Paulo

Bill R., if this was a Republican you would be all over it. Flip flopping, not telling the truth, lying, distorting, whatever.

Really, on this issue I could care less. The whole episode has shown questions of leadership by both Hillary and Obama, as well as an inability to state positions, beliefs. Yes, it's a small story. However, when you start putting together one small story after another (parking tickets, not paying taxes, not answering questions, hiding, etc.), then one must begin to question the qualifications and integrity of that candidate.

Reporter.

John D....I don't believe I would be jumping all over this if it were a republican. This is a wedge issue and if I wanted to make a big deal out of it, I would be ranting about the fact that McCain also avoided this question, and rightly so.

The point here, folks, is that Mr. Obama claims that he didn't answer any questions that day. The reporter says he had proof that he did answer questions, but chose not to answer his particular questions re: Gen. Pace's comments. This particular post in the Swamp has nothing to do with Obama's beliefs on homosexuality and EVERYTHING to do with his credibility. And yes, I'm sure Sen. Obama would love for nothing more than for us to continue to focus solely on Iraq and Bush at all times no matter what else happens. Then, we can conveniently forget the fact that he is running for President of the United States and Bush is not.

I'd rather have either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House over the current resident any day of the week. There's no way they could be any worse.

Hey Paulo - how's your research coming? Or are you finally willing to admit that you willingly have been repeating a FALSE STORY about the source of the Obama "madrassa" school smear job?

I'm sure Sen. Obama would love for nothing more than for us to continue to focus solely on Iraq
Posted by: JB | Mar 29, 2007 10:42:05 AM

Hate to break it to ya JB but that "is" all that
people focus on today and rightly so. The republican candidates are running on the same ideas on Iraq as the president so it is as if Bush was running. It is quite amazing that you have found out all you need to know of ones credibility by a 3 second incident with a reporter. And god know how the right believes everything a reporter says. When it's convenient!

Might I also point out...did you see the attorney general run out of the press conference
yesterday? Hows his credibility?

I'd rather hear what Jesse Ventura or Rush Limbaugh have to say about it.

What's interesting is that if you look at Obama's record/beliefs, one would see that he supports gay rights. I would understand this being more of an issue if he were anti-gay rights, but it makes very little sense to challenge his views because he did not immediately respond to a question on his way into a car. The issue of gay rights, and its morality, is a very contentious one, and I applaud him for not wanting to answer without first analyzing what effect his words would have. It's not necessarily that he is being political about the situation, but he fears dividing the nation further, especially by commenting on the relgion-driven notion that homosexuality is immoral. In the end, he realizes that gays should be given rights, but believes that this country is only ready for small steps, and he's right.

Bubba, can we get Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo's "learned" opinions, too?

Get real, flip flopping? He came out and said without a doubt his position on this, he's mentioned homosexuality in speech after speech, long before the question ever came up. And credibility? Look in the mirror. How many questions do you think he didn't answer that day, seriously? 100? 1000? Probably somewhere between there. Those of you who believe this stuff probably don't believe in global warming either. USE YOUR BRAIN!
You guys are running scared. I don't expect right wing extremists and republican loyalists to ever actually rise above schoolyard name calling and lying, but your day has come and gone (at least until America forgets how deceitful and un-American you really are.)

I believe Obama. Gay's in the military. Don't ask don't tell. Works for me. Gay's and women have an equal right to get shot up along with straight men thanks to the upcoming Bush veto. The veto will stop war funding, and put the troops in harms way. Thanks decider!

Piling on much???? Chicago Tribune??? eh? Maybe in the rush to vote he DID FORGET THE EXCHANGE. How about giving someone the benefit of the doubt? When I see all those microphones and cameras thrust in his face I don't know how he remembers HIS NAME!! lol. If he was rushing to make a vote you know do his job give him the benefit cut him some slack. He's not superhuman, he's human after all. I know everyone expected that from him, but was that fair or realistic?? I've even heard him say he's an imperfect vessel. Has he ever claimed to be 100% accurate about every statement?? Didn't his book say that some characters were composites, some conversations were combined and other events were out of sequence?? That's a disclaimer so you can't hold him to every MINUTE DETAIL. That's what some still try to do. He acknowledged that he had probably not avoided all the pitfalls of being accurate in the preface to Dreams.
And in the conversation the reporter mentioned, perhaps he meant that he was not taking questions, that reporters were just throwing questions at him, trying to trip him up, so they can do say what this reporter is now saying...
GOTCHA!!!!

I know for a fact that the press hides and distorts the truth.I really can't say that about Obama,so I will have to believe his version of this event.

I like gays!!!!

Yes, it's a small story. VERY small.

So what if he avoided a question? With the media picking apart every word he utters with a fine-toothed comb he has to be more careful than most about what he says. The average person doesn't have to publicly clarify, explain or even apologize for each statement she makes. Obama only has one chance to voice his opinion - if he doesn't convey his sentiment properly he must defend it from that day forward.
People are trying to make this a party problem (i.e. a Republican would have answered, or a Republican would have more credibility) but it is clearly not. Any politician, even one with integrity like Obama, must carefully edit what he says each time he opens his mouth or it could be the end of his career.

Come on. You catch a candidate trying to get into his car so he can go cast a vote, a job he is supposed to be doing, and you question the fact that he is moving through a mob with people throwing questions at him and expect him to remember one particular reporter throwing out a question he doesn't even remember if he answered or not? Is that what a "swamp" is? I believe if you do some homework, and watch some of his speeches, he speaks about sexual preference multiple times. Does he have to respond to everyone else's comments on the issue to be credible? Get real. This is the same old stuff rehashed and rehashed. Why not put to bed the attack on him about his book, when actual citizens who are not reporters were able to find the article he writes about in his book, Dreams of my Father, which DID EXIST, he just got the magazine wrong, which is to be expected trying to remember over 20 years later. The article he wrote about in his book was published in TIME MAGAZINE on October 28, 1966. We also found the photo of the scarred man widely circulated at the time which he must have seen. The Time Magazine article dated 10/28/1966 discussed BLEACHING OF THE SKIN as he recounts. But despite sending the FACTUAL information to people like you, not a single reporter has corrected that attack. Wonder why? Whose payroll are YOU on? Mrs. Clinton's?

bill r. has it right.

This is as non-story as "non-story" gets.

The issue to me isn't whether or not Senators Obama or Clinton dodged the question, it's that the comment was made at all. Republican's like to claim that the Democrats have no back bone, or flip flop on the issues. This issue was created when an assanine statement was made to begin with. And kudos to the Dems for taking their stance and at least trying to bring our troops home despite the inevitable veto warning. At least they are starting to form a backbone. That's more than I can say about the person that's in charge. Part of having a back bone is having the ability to admit when your just flat out wrong.

First, presidents or presidential candidates, like army leaders, should not be moral arbiters for America. No president has ever run on a platform of whether or not a gay lifestyle is immoral. It may be an important opinion by some gays, but the more salient point is: are gays treated equally. Fact is, no one is equipped to answer the morality question of two/three/four...men (or women) having sex and/or living together. It sounds unnatural, and even freakish to many heteros--including moi--but, frankly speaking, it's no one else's business. I'd rather share a foxhole with a straight-shooting (no pun) gay man any day, than Mr Macho who's a half-ass shooter. (Sorry for these double-entendres.)

Obama's initial response was right; Generals should relegate their opinions to military matters. Period. Look, whether or not homosexuality is immoral is too open to one's acculturation; religious influence/teachings; media input, etc...The most accurate, and from my perspective, the most truthful answer would have been: "I don't know." But, that would have led to even more negative feedback: "He's indecisive". "He's anti-gay". "Spineless!" And on and on.

Thus, because Gen Pace came down with a sudden bout of FIMS (Foot in Mouth Syndrome), both he and HRC got entangled in this unforseeable Gordian knot. The trailing Edwards can, and needs to be blunt. After all, he's a bonifide ambulance chaser. His unequivical first response makes him appear more straight forward. However, the front runners have to be more circumspect, they have more on the line. Their initial reticence to respond directly or deflect...shows either (understandable) ambivalence or that they truly share Pace's "Gay's are Immoral" theory, but admitting such could be political suicide. It's not worth the gamble. There are simply too many more vital issues at stake; so let's stop squeezing this pimple and allow it to dry up on it's own.

Hey fc:

Appropo chastisement of the media! Way to do your homework!

No, inaccuracies in his statement. He gave quick answers because he was in a hurry. And he didn't answer the Brazilian reporter's question anymore than he answered the homosexuality question. His answer to the Brazilian question was: "We need to take a look at the agreement before I comment on that,"

From the Sun Times
"As Obama was rushing to leave the hotel, a reporter for a Brazil broadcast outlet tossed Obama a question about a pending U.S.-Brazil biofuels agreement and whether he supports lower tariffs on ethanol. Support for ethanol is a major issue in Iowa -- the state with the first presidential vote next January, so Obama was cautious with the potential Iowa landmine. "We need to take a look at the agreement before I comment on that," he said.

Then a Newsday reporter, Glenn Thrush, said to Obama, "What do you think about Gen. [Peter] Pace's comments that homosexuality is immoral?"

The question was a follow-up to the statement the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made to the Chicago Tribune editorial board, that homosexual acts were immoral.

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters,'' said Obama. ''That's probably a good tradition to follow. ''

Obama was asked again. "What do you think of the characterization of homosexuality as being immoral? Sen. Clinton was asked that this morning on 'Good Morning America.' Do you think homosexuality is immoral as Gen. Pace has asserted?''

At that, Obama reframed the question to refer to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and he said, "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to? If they are doing all the things that are needed to be done." He ignored a third try. "

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/sweet_column_how_obama_clinton.html

Could someone turn the bold tags off?

Jeff,

I don't think you could handle the truth.

Bubba, as if you would know the truth if it stared you in the face.

Why ask a person a question while they are on the run, when you could just as easily arrange an interview? What sort of answer are you expecting under those circumstances? I heard the Senator's comments in response to that question on Larry King Live over a week or two ago, so for all intents and purposes he had already put his position on the matter in the public domain before the reporter chased him on his way to his car. Why play it like a harp?

Why would a newspaper lie to us, you say? Please!

Jeff, truths and the Loony Left have nothing in common. I've never come across a Loony Lefter who has shown any capability of dealing with or even grasping reality.

This author and Chicago Tribune has lost my respect. What a ridicule thing to write about and makes it clear how biased they are

Does anybody know why Pinocchio forbids his white grandmother
from doing any interviews, this strikes me as curious. She's been repeatedly approached by N. Y. Times for a interview but she always refuses, saying she doesn't feel up to it. You'd think Pinocchio would mention her once in a while, after all she raised him, paid for his tuition at the fancy Hawaiian H.S. Something is out of sorts here, I hope he doesn't have her locked up in a closet somewhere.

In walks the courageous Don B. and wants to know why the media can't grill an old lady. How high do you want to string her up there Don? Such a mocho man. I'll see what I can do about that if you let me grill your grandmother, OK tough guy?
What a putz. I see you read a new book too...Pinocchio. Did it have pictures and everything? Most people read that when they are 6
are you older? You must be soooo big.

oh oh a GOTCHA MOMENT for this reporter! Looks like he told a little lie himself. this is what Glenn Thrush says:
"Contrary to the assertion that he wasn't answering reporters' questions, Obama did also respond to a Brazilian reporter quizzing him on ethanol."
But according to the report filed by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune, Obama DID NOT respond to the reporter's question, instead saying:
"We need to take a look at the agreement before I comment on that"
BIG OOPS!
lol
Looks like Glenn's got some splainin to do of his own. lol. How's it feel when someone plays you back, Glenn???
hehe
but then again...ARE reporters held to a standard of truth before the CHICAGO TRIBUNE publishes their stories on their site????
guess not

marsha, dear, Lynn Sweet works for the Chicago Sun-Times. You might want to do some fact checking of your own before you speak or write!

okay