Obama Camp Pushes Back Hard Against Washington Post
We bow to no one in our respect for Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, but today the Obama campaign is accusing him of botching a key fact.
In this morning's column, which contrasts "Wall Street" and "Main Street" Democrats, Meyerson wrote that "the younger masters of the universe" on Wall Street "give big-time to such Democrats as Barack Obama" because he voted for the much-maligned bankruptcy bill.
In response, Obama spokesman Bill Burton just blasted out an email accusing Meyerson of getting it wrong, adding: "If you check out the vote and his floor statement at the time, you’ll see that he not only opposed it but also spoke in very forceful terms about the problems he had with it, earning the praise of Senator Ted Kennedy."
As we've noted here before, one of the more interesting subplots of Campaign 2008 is the increasingly aggressive pushback against the media we're seeing from the Dem primary candidates. This is more of the same.
Late Update: David Sirota says that Meyerson is actually in the right on this.
Late Late Update: A reader writes in to question Sirota's take, pointing out that Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill and for every Democratic amendment except the one he singles out.
Comments (25)
Hatch wrote on October 24, 2007 11:21 AM:"Accusing Meyerson of getting it wrong" is an incredibly weak way for you to frame this. The claim that Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill is demonstrably false. Was the Post opinion page not fact-checked today, or what?
Nick Grossman wrote on October 24, 2007 11:21 AM:The press needs to be held accountable for what they say. Way to go Obama campaign.
areyouready wrote on October 24, 2007 11:30 AM:Obama is a typical hypocrite. Washingtonpost is reporting his diaper donor, Geez...
Elrick Williams’s toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year’s presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.
Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 11:32 AM:Meyerson got it wrong. Rapid Response apparently is working.
Greg: Have you contacted Meyerson to ask why he didn't do his homework on this one?
Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 11:39 AM:Donor sends in money. Turns out donor is underage (some as young as 2). Campaign returns money.
CT Voter wrote on October 24, 2007 11:40 AM:is the increasingly aggressive pushback against the media we're seeing from the Dem primary candidates. This is more of the same.
Yes, this is a very good sign. Now if it could only be translated into an "aggressive pushback" against the administration.
Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 11:40 AM:While I am surprised that it didn't take at least five (5) days for the Obama campaign to respond . . . Good on him and his folks for doing their job.
Keith wrote on October 24, 2007 11:47 AM:seems to me Meyerson got his facts wrong.
Anon:
When did it take Obama's campaign 5 days to respond to anything?
Lawrence Jones wrote on October 24, 2007 11:53 AM:Thank goodness EC is around to report on the Obama campaign's "accusations."
Please keep us posted if any more "accusations" come out of the Obama campaign.
And, although I hate to be picky, I think this post would be much better if you added a photo of a scowling Obama pointing an accusing finger. Because that's the story here. Obama accuses.
As I've noted here before, one of the more interesting subplots of Campaign 2008 is the increasingly aggressive pushback against some of the Dem candidates we're seeing from some in the media.
jerseymissouri wrote on October 24, 2007 11:58 AM:Tip of the hat to Obama's rapid response team
NCSteve wrote on October 24, 2007 12:05 PM:Greg,
I think maybe you just rushed through the writing on this, but it does come across as an MSM "opinions vary on the shape of the Earth" take on the story. Myerson's botching of this fact (and one wonders whether he could have gotten this mistaken notion from another candidate) pretty much undermines the entire premise for his column.
NCSteve wrote on October 24, 2007 12:10 PM:Greg,
I think maybe you just rushed through the writing on this, but it does come across as an MSM "opinions vary on the shape of the Earth" take on the story. Myerson's botching of this fact (and one wonders whether he could have gotten this mistaken notion from another candidate) pretty much undermines the entire premise for his column.
benjoya wrote on October 24, 2007 12:13 PM:Myerson:
"They give big-time to such Democrats as Barack Obama (who voted for the bank-backed legislation making it harder for people of modest means to declare bankruptcy)"
Except he voted against it. Obama's not "pushing back" or "accusing" the Post; he's correcting them.
Jeremy wrote on October 24, 2007 12:48 PM:The Post just pretty straightforwardly got the facts wrong here. Why isn't the headline "Obama corrects falsehoods in Washington Post Story"?
Dave wrote on October 24, 2007 1:07 PM:Here's the vote in case there is any lingering doubt.
judyinnm wrote on October 24, 2007 1:09 PM:This article does sound like you've adopted the MSM's practice of suggesting correction of a demonstrably incorrect assertion by the press, concerning a Democratic candidate, is a "he said, she said" type thing.
Has this website been infiltrated?
benjoya wrote on October 24, 2007 1:41 PM:dave, duh, that was the link i meant to include.
duh.
Dave wrote on October 24, 2007 1:52 PM:Looks like Meyerson/the Post has corrected the column, revising to reference a different (looks to be more obscure) vote...
They give big-time to such Democrats as Barack Obama (who supported legislation moving class-action lawsuits from state to federal courts, a bill intended to reduce the size of jury awards in such lawsuits)...
Hatch wrote on October 24, 2007 2:15 PM:Meyerson must have gotten this from Sirota, who has done a lot of whining about that particular vote. He fails to mention that Obama voted in favor of Russ Feingold's amendment to that bill, which would have stripped the offending language. He also fails to mention that newly-crowned progressive hero Chris Dodd also voted in favor of the bill in question.
Dave wrote on October 24, 2007 2:21 PM:Meyerson must have gotten this from Sirota, who has done a lot of whining about that particular vote. He fails to mention that Obama voted in favor of Russ Feingold's amendment to that bill, which would have stripped the offending language. He also fails to mention that newly-crowned progressive hero Chris Dodd also voted in favor of the bill in question.
I think this type of situations best sums up why Senators have had an historically difficult time running for president...
Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 3:33 PM:Obama corrected an obvious mistake. What the hell is the matter with you EC?
TJFRMLA wrote on October 24, 2007 3:55 PM:While you slamming Obama because some donnor gave him 2500 in the name of the donor's child...Obama DID NOT SOLICIT THE DONATION! His team returned the donation when the facts were found out.
NOW FOR HILLARY CLINTON, who's team strong-armed dishwashers in Chinatown, New York for thousands of dollars and have not returned a dime. Where's the reporting on that? I'm sick of people trying to tear down a decent human being. Every sleeze out there is trying to find a weak spot. It's disgusting!
Credit card interest rates should be capped at 30%. It's too bad that some Ivy League elitists don't want any caps.
NCSteve wrote on October 24, 2007 4:42 PM:Forgive me for reverting to type and being legalistic, but while an amendment to cap credit card rates at 30% might or might not be a good thing, and while there's no contesting that credit card companies are responsible for a lot of bankruptcies and were pushing this bill, this proposed amendment was not the bankruptcy bill that's now our Bankruptcy
Act. If the amendment had been passed, it would not have been codified in the same title as the Bankruptcy Act. If Congress had passed it, it would not even have been exercising power under the same damn Constitutional clause as empowered it to pass a Bankruptcy Act. So to suggest that Sirota or Myerson were even kinda right to suggest Obama voted for that abomination of a Bankrupcty Act is so intellectually dishonest that it would be like, well, arguing that Hillary was for the Bankruptcy Act because she didn't cast a vote on it at all.
What concerns me at this point is that Myerson's misstatement was published on the net and thus is now the proverbial pee in the proverbial swimming pool. Nice the way the WaPo does a rewrite and then fails to acknowledge having done it. It will no doubt print a correction in the dead tree edition on page D-102, right beneath the tide tables.
CT Voter wrote on October 24, 2007 5:23 PM:right beneath the tide tables.Nah. People might be interested in tide tables, so it can't go there. It might be read.
