Blog

Posts Tagged ‘NBC’

Stumbling out of the gates

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Reflecting on the President’s evolving response to the failed Christmas attack, NBC’s First Read today sees a pattern in the Obama Team’s frequent early mishandling of news events:

During the presidential campaign, Team Obama often displayed this pattern when dealing with a troubling story: They swung and missed on the first pitch or two (bad first day response), then singled up the middle on the following pitch (adequate response), and finally, in many cases, scored (truly found their stride). Some examples that come to mind: Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” controversy. And this pattern reared its head again regarding the failed terrorist attack. Compare Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s “the system worked” and even the president’s initial statement on the failed attack, to John Brennan’s strong performance on “Meet” yesterday and Obama’s equally strong weekly address on Saturday and his SECOND statement last week when he said there were “human and systemic failures.”

The NBC political unit is absolutely correct that the Obama Team was prone to stumbling out of the gates during the campaign. In addition to the Wright & “bitter” episodes, their initial attack (and then backtracking) on Sarah Palin was incredibly inartful.

But it’s not a problem, as the NBC guys suggest, that the Obama team somehow had solved between the campaign and the failed Christmas attack. To the contrary, the Obama Administration has initially fumbled plenty of events in the last 12 months, most significantly the initial response to the H1N1 breakout. (Also: several cabinet nominations, the canceled missile defense shield, and some of the fiscal responsibility messaging.)

Obama’s inconsistent message on terrorism

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

On Saturday night, I wondered why President Obama had not commented on the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas, and argued that the White House’s stated reasons for the President’s silence did not make much sense.

Of course, since then, the President made statements on the attacks on both Monday and Tuesday — suggesting that the White House’s original explanation (that he did not want to spread panic or embolden the terrorists) was either disingenuous or wrong-headed.

Equally interesting is how inconsistent the Administration’s message has been on the attacks. From saying nothing on-camera on Friday and Saturday, to having senior officials tell the public on Sunday that “the system worked”, to President Obama’s cool response on Monday and emphatic statement yesterday, the Administration’s message in both substance and tone has been dramatically different every day. Taken altogether, it gives the impression of an Administration knocked seriously off its game, and does little to ease the public’s concerns about the government’s competency.

I made some of these points — and others — during an interview on MSNBC yesterday:

Afghan Silence Continued

Monday, August 10th, 2009

President Obama had a prime opportunity to articulate his Afghanistan policy today when he held a press conference with Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper, but once again he did not mention the effort.

It’s too bad, because in the last 36 hours, his Administration has been all over the map on what the future holds in Afghanistan. This morning, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, reporting that the commander believed “the Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan” and that US casualties will remain high for months to come (which isn’t really news to anybody following developments there, but nevertheless a sobering assessment considering the source).

This comes after Obama’s national security advisors struggled to explain, defend and predict the future of the war on yesterday’s Sunday Shows. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Obama’s National Security Advisor offered a different “endgame” than Obama’s goal of just defeating al Qaeda:

“The endgame in Afghanistan is obviously to turn the responsibility for their security and economic prosperity and the governance over to Afghans as quickly as possible.”

Jones also said that we would know by the “end of next year” whether or not we would succeed in Afghanistan, which is a more ambitious timeline than military commanders have offered.

(As an aside: Does anybody believe that if the Administration does turn down commanders’ requests for additional troops that Afghanistan will be stabilized by the “end of next year”? And where will that leave Obama, if chaos continues to reign there in 15 months?)

Similarly, Susan Rice’s comments on CNN downplayed the need for more troops and resources in the war, while repeating the President’s goal from March “to defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and its extremist allies.”

Considering the confusing and contradictory statements coming from Obama’s military and civilian advisors over the need for more troops, the progress being achieved, and the likelihood of success in the next few years, one might think the Commander in Chief would want to offer some leadership. But instead, he let another opportunity pass.

Connect

Archives

Tags

ABC afghanistan AP Axelrod baseball budget campaign CBS chicago tribune cillizza clinton CNN communications Congress disaster economics eurobama europe flip-flop gaffes gibbs health care Huffington Post image Jon Stewart media mike allen Minnesota myths NBC new york times obama palin pandemic politico polls President Bush press conference Republicans Reuters roll-out tax cuts wall street journal washington post White House