Obama Absolutely, Positively, And Completely Rules Out Permanent Bases In Iraq

Comments (28)

DRinOH wrote on November 27, 2007 2:31 PM:

Can you take down the prior post now?

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 2:32 PM:

Are you sure Greg? What if they are built, will he keep them? Does this pass the Ackerman/Dodd test?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 2:33 PM:

Didn't he already issue a press release saying this already? Oh, it was different, but it was the same, but it was different. Oh well, sounds the same to me.

DRinOH wrote on November 27, 2007 2:35 PM:

Maybe next time a campaign sends out a seemingly blatant response and you feel like you've found a golden nugget, just email the campaign back with your reservations about the statement and ask them. That would be better than putting up a misleading post and having your journalistic asses handed to you for half an hour until the campaign gets wind of what you've done and is forced to set it straight. Again.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 2:36 PM:

Well...there you go!

fix home page title wrote on November 27, 2007 2:47 PM:

it now reads:

ObamaL: absolutely...

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 2:48 PM:

wait!!!!

he didn't specify that if space aliens magically build bases and offer them to us, he will not accept them as president.

so i guess this means he's still leaving some wiggle room, right?

now how about go ask HRC whether she will have permanent bases. I'd love to see this site attack her for a mushy answer.

editors: fix home page title wrote on November 27, 2007 2:48 PM:

it now reads:

ObamaL: absolutely...

Gnopple wrote on November 27, 2007 2:50 PM:

Ha ha ha... I like the headline.

But to get the main point: I respect TPM most when it doesn't try to put a spin on an issue when it doesn't call for one. Ackerman's take wasn't analysis, it was armchair spinning -- and that's what was so dumb. We need the Horse's Mouth and TPM to be better than that.

KimMcCall wrote on November 27, 2007 3:00 PM:

Come on folks. Ackerman was right to parse the Obama statement carefully. The administration drives wars through smaller lacunae. Where they were wrong was in not seeking clarification from the campaign before publicizing the possible hedging.

EH wrote on November 27, 2007 3:01 PM:

Hmm, this "soft initial statement followed up by the *real* statement" is turning into a recurring theme. Maybe it's politics at large, but would it kill them to acknowledge that they don't have the universe figured out already and so they might want to defer any statement or answer to a surprise question? I mean, it's only human.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 3:06 PM:

I dunno, Greg. It still seems kind of wishy washy. I think you should add to "totally" after "Iraq" in the headline. Otherwise, you'll get branded a Hillarly supporter.

DRinOH wrote on November 27, 2007 3:12 PM:

I like the post on the front page. "Earlier today the campaign issued a somewhat hedged statement..." Actually, the statement was perfectly clear until you hedged it. That post reads like the hollow apology it is.

NamelessFaceless wrote on November 27, 2007 3:13 PM:

Headline at HuffPo:

Clinton Rolls Out Streisand On Heels Of Oprah-Obama Deal

I love Obama but am no fan of Oprah. I thought it was a mistake to have her on because she turns off people like me. Thank God Clinton got Streisand out there who is infinitely worse so I won't feel any need to defect.

oaklander wrote on November 27, 2007 3:15 PM:

Nice how camp obama took the time to respond to this site and then gets slammed with a big stinky, much ado about nothing, "A-Ha!"

So, what will HRC say? Her camp hasn't even responded yet -- perhaps that is the wiser course with the chicken little tact taken in this case. Perhaps they are in a panic now and are still crafting their "wiggle room" response to this site's inquiry.

Bob wrote on November 27, 2007 3:15 PM:

There is more and more of this lately from TPM. Maybe we just expect too much from them. TPM, at least try to look outside of your fishbowl every once in a while before you post. You certainly did find a weakness in the original statement, because you looked very hard. But it seems it was not intentional, and you would have realized this with a simple email, BEFORE you posted the first posting. You are no longer a fly by night operation, you have a responsibility to be more responsible. Please do so or you will lose those of use who read you for facts and analysis, not sensationalism. We can get that from CNN.

Alex wrote on November 27, 2007 3:18 PM:

Sorry. I don't buy it. This statement is weak. If I may:

"Barack Obama is against permanent bases in Iraq. He will not seek them. (Too late, they're already there) He will not build them. (DITTO) We will not have permanent bases in Iraq if Barack Obama is President." (But they're already there. Is he going to dismantle them? Give the Iraqi's complete control over them? Until he addresses this issue correctly I'm going sit here and quietly continue to call "Bullshit".)

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 3:20 PM:

That would be better than putting up a misleading post and having your journalistic asses handed to you for half an hour until the campaign gets wind of what you've done and is forced to set it straight

"journalistic asses handed to you?" The original post was part of a series of posts on the campaign's response to the news of the Bush-Maliki agreement about permanent bases. Dodd responded first, and most definitively. Obama, in the response to yesterday's news responded not so definitively, compared to Dodd. Is TPM Election Central just supposed to give that a pass? Apparently, TPM Election Central is supposed to simply write down what a campaign says without any analysis. Or, at least, write down what Obama's campaign says.

EC was right to question the initial Obama campaign response. I happen to be a fan of Obama, but his campaign has had a history of having to offer clarifying statements. Today's wasn't any different. And they, frankly, are better off for having to be absolutely, positively, totally now and forever clear about their response.

DaveWoo wrote on November 27, 2007 3:29 PM:

Alex is right; this statement is just chock full of loopholes. A few more:

"Barack Obama" - They aren't specifying which Barack Obama; they could be referring to some other guy of the same name, not the presidential candidate.

"permanent bases" - They aren't specifying military bases; they could be referring to the bases on a baseball diamond instead.

"He will not build them." - Of course he won't personally build them; the bases would be built by military personnel.

Simply put, this statement is still not 100% definitive, and TPM should push even harder for a super-duper-extra-clear response from the Obama camp.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 3:38 PM:

CT Voter,

The concrete suggestions are that before posting Spencer's analysis, Greg:

A) should have done some elementary fact-checking; and

B) should have contacted the Obama campaign for a comment if he was still inclined to go with Spencer's analysis after doing (A).

But it is water under the bridge now.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 3:46 PM:

DTM:

How do you know EC didn't do any of those things, and still posted it?

The statement "to not seek permament bases" is a little unclear, because it doesn't address what happens if a) Iraq offers them and b) they already exist when Obama takes office. Hillary Clinton's statement (or letter to the WH) suffers from the same ambiguity, in my opinion. So maybe that's why I just don't see the shoddy journamalism that you do in this piece.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 4:10 PM:

CT Voter,

If Greg did those things and still posted Spencer's analysis, then he would be guilty of a serious ethical breach.

So I am assuming he did not.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 4:26 PM:

It's a serious breach of ethics to have a knowledgeable colleague speculate about the implications of the phrase "not seeking permanent bases"??

I don't see that, at all. EC was posting about Obama's statement yesterday, when this issue of permanent bases became much more of a possibility, because of the Bush-Maliki "agreements".

Sloppy journalism? Maybe. Serious breach of ethics? No.

DRinOH wrote on November 27, 2007 4:51 PM:

CT:

Your question was "How do we know EC didn't [contact the Obama campaign] and still posted it?"

If they called the Obama camp and said "Hey, we're thinking this statement is a little wishy-washy, do you guys want to clarify?" Presumably the campaign would have given him the comment you see in the text of this post. At which point, publishing a post saying 'he didn't rule it out' would be unethical, not to mention dumb.

What happened is they got a quote, proactively sought out some kind of "wiggle room," and found it, or rather, made it up. Then, without seeking (what should have been unnecessary) clarification from the campaign, they published it. Then for half an hour, amateur blog readers posted the myriad other statements from Obama on the web that clearly show his position against permanent bases, until finally the campaign sent (what should have been an unnecessary) follow-up.

You can say all you want about how "will not seek" isn't the same as "will not allow," but it was plenty clear from the original post that he was not equivocating. This is especially true in light of his numerous other statements already out there which we all saw, and TPMEC should have seen.

Bottom line, like DTM said, it's water under the bridge. Let's move on...

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 5:01 PM:

CT Voter,

DRinOH pretty much covered it.

To summarize, my point was just that if Greg did (A) or (B), he would have known Spencer's analysis was wrong, and then it would have been unethical for him to post Spencer's analysis as if he hadn't done (A) or (B). But I don't actually think that is what happened--I was just responding to your question about why I was assuming Greg didn't do (A) or (B).

In other words, I agree: it was most likely sloppy journalism, and not a breach of ethics--but it is definitely one or the other. Still, it is now in the past, so I also say we move on.

NCSteve wrote on November 27, 2007 5:13 PM:

The humor value of the comments in the two posts has been worth the whole little imbroglio.

Seriously, though, I think its all Clinton I's fault. No, seriously.

After Nixon, the press stopped engaging in the kind of hyper-parsing that was applied to Obama's statement until Bill caused them to require the habit. Then Bush II came in and the press continued to parse without cracking Dubya's code (if they make an unequivocal statement, its a lie. If they go all Clintonesque, they're just trying to hide the truth in plain sight.)

Now, everyone gets subjected to the hyper-parse whether their record justifies it or not. You get stupid results like this when you try to do it to Obama because his whole campaign is dedicated to the notion that there's something wrong when you have to put every word out of your president's mouth under an electron microscope. And, of course, its useless to try to parse Hillary's statements. You'll just end up with the same result you'd have if you tried julliane slice thin air.

PowerOfX wrote on November 27, 2007 5:16 PM:

Yes, but suppose the permanent bases already exist?

Is Obama's statement supposed to be interpreted as meaning that he will dismantle them? It's hard to find the words there that suggest this.

I know that overall ability to use of the English language has declined precipitously everywhere in the last 20 years but I don't think a Presidential campaign would omit this particular dimension because it never occurred to the writers.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 5:18 PM:

To DRinOH,

but it was plenty clear from the original post that he was not equivocating

I didn't interpret the original post as being "plenty clear" at all about not equivocating, regardless of what Spencer Ackerman might have thought about it or not. So my initial interpretation, without TPM's analysis, was that this was a somewhat ambiguous response from Obama. Same issue I have with Clinton's letter to the White House. I think it's possible to interpret both Obama's and Clinton's remarks in two different ways, and that has nothing to do with shoddy journalism or a breach of ethics or with what each have said at different times.

And to both DRinOH and DTM: you're both right--time to move on.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)