Why, it only seems a couple weeks ago that Barry, reflecting on the Obama family gigglefest on Access Hollywood said this:
Barack Obama said it was a mistake to allow his daughters to be interviewed extensively by “Access Hollywood,†and he will not allow it to happen again.
“I think that we got carried away in the moment,†the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Wednesday. [...]
“We wouldn’t do it again, and we won’t be doing it again,†the candidate said flatly.
Not doing it again, lasted until today
The Democratic presidential candidate and wife Michelle tell PEOPLE how they raise their girls in the public eye.
Oh, well …
Nevermind.
(h/t Michelle Malkin)
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 8:12 pm #
I think by “it,” he was probably referring to having his young children do an interview, not he himself never talking to the media about his kids ever again. For instance, that sentence you quote goes, “Barack Obama said it was a mistake to allow his daughters to be interviewed extensively by ‘Access Hollywood,’ and he will not allow it to happen again.”
Comment by happyfeet on 7/23 @ 8:26 pm #
oh. They have to do this so people think he’s just like Kennedy. It’s pitiful, but the kids have to pull their own weight.
Comment by Toby Petzold on 7/23 @ 8:27 pm #
Right, Barrett, because discussing the details of your daughters’ private lives in a People magazine photo spread is much less intrusive.
I can’t wait for Barry’s kids to give him advice on nuclear arms control.
Comment by thor on 7/23 @ 8:27 pm #
I think he meant TV interview. Savor the nuance.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 8:34 pm #
“Right, Barrett, because discussing the details of your daughters’ private lives in a People magazine photo spread is much less intrusive.”
Well, I don’t know how high telling People magazine that one’s daughters have to pick up after themselves rates on the “intrusive” meter, but the point of the post seems to have been that Obama reneged on his promise that he wouldn’t allow his daughters to be interviewed again, when, in fact, he has indeed kept that promise, seeing as how his children weren’t interviewed for that People article. I know that Michelle Malkin says that he had them “sit down for an interview with People,” but if one actually goes to the article in question, one finds that this did not actually occur, Malkin notwithstanding.
Comment by happyfeet on 7/23 @ 8:40 pm #
They don’t say who “some folks” was but I bet it was whitey. Call it a hunch.
Comment by Toby Petzold on 7/23 @ 8:40 pm #
To the sociopath, all people —even their own children— are potential props.
You know what Obama’s expressions of [regret] reminded me of? Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus [regretting] their semi-erotic father-daughter pictorial in Vanity Fair. Just crushed about the whole thing and the week of non-stop salaciousness and what’s the next step, daddy? Cooterville?
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 8:44 pm #
BB
Nice parsing there.
What Barry did in Access he does in People, using his family for a Kennedyesqe image making - covers of the Practically Perfect in Everyway Package Deal.
He caught a bit of flack with the Access thingy because it was so blatant, but I guess he can’t quite resist being on the cover of a frivolous celeb-zine.
Savor the hypocrisy.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 7/23 @ 8:46 pm #
Is there anyone else even running? Evertime I turn on TV there he is, everytime I look at a newspaper there he is too. Magazines when I am getting my haircut or I go to the doctors office all have his face on the front page. I turned on the radio station the other day and they were talkin about this guy on a music station. This is starting to feel like playing Where’s Waldo, but the entire page is Waldo.
Comment by thor on 7/23 @ 8:47 pm #
The auto-cynicism, nice.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 8:52 pm #
“To the sociopath, all people â€â€even their own children are potential props.”
Ahem. Reagan put his daughter Patti in one of his old Borax commercials.
“BB
Nice parsing there.
What Barry did in Access he does in People, using his family for a Kennedyesqe image making - covers of the Practically Perfect in Everyway Package Deal.
He caught a bit of flack with the Access thingy because it was so blatant, but I guess he can’t quite resist being on the cover of a frivolous celeb-zine.
Savor the hypocrisy.”
Again, Obama didn’t say he wouldn’t be “using his family for a Kennedyesqe image making - covers of the Practically Perfect in Everyway Package Deal,” by which I suppose you mean talking about his family and letting people take pictures of them and whatnot. He said, according to the very article that you cite, that he wouldn’t allow them to be interviewed. Now, if we pretend that “not allowing his kids to be interviewed” equates to “not talking about his kids ever again,” then, sure, let’s get a big whiff of that imaginary hypocrisy.
Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that Malkin claims that Obama had his children “sit down for an interview” with People when no such thing actually happened?
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 8:53 pm #
Evertime I turn on TV there he is, everytime I look at a newspaper there he is too
Get used to your new Royal Leader. He won’t allow you your cynicism, He will make you work to better your life.
He is the Change we’ve been waiting for (and if you disagree, there is a re-education camp in your future).
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 8:58 pm #
BB
They were there for the interview as evidence by the photospread. They just weren’t quoted this time (you think everything in an interview appears in print?)
Both the Clintons and Bushes went out of their ways to keep their minor children out of public scrutiny. A few shots of the kids at formal/official functions but no magazine spreads or Oprah appearances.
O! has no reason to subject his girls to this EXCEPT as political props.
Chicago amoral politicking. He learned well.
Comment by poppa india on 7/23 @ 9:04 pm #
If I remember right, the Borax commercials (Death Valley Days?) was quite a while before Reagan got involved in national politics. And getting a kid in a commercial to make some money for herself seems different from involvement in a political campaign.
Comment by Toby Petzold on 7/23 @ 9:06 pm #
Barrett:
Ahem. Reagan put his daughter Patti in one of his old Borax commercials.
That’s the least relevant response I’ve ever read in a comments thread. And which office was Reagan running for while still filming Borax ads?
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 9:06 pm #
“BB
They were there for the interview as evidence by the photospread. They just weren’t quoted this time (you think everything in an interview appears in print?)”
I conduct interviews myself occasionally, so, yes, I know how they work. And I’ll teach you a real super-sekret zomg awesome media trick - go take a look at the dates on those picture captions. I think you’ll be unpleasantly surprised to learn that these are all older photos from different occasions.
“Both the Clintons and Bushes went out of their ways to keep their minor children out of public scrutiny. A few shots of the kids at formal/official functions but no magazine spreads or Oprah appearances.”
Okay. But Nixon didn’t, and neither did plenty of other presidents and candidates. I don’t have strong feelings about that particular issue and haven’t expressed any.
“O! has no reason to subject his girls to this EXCEPT as political props.
Chicago amoral politicking. He learned well.”"
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about that, actually.
I’m assuming you just didn’t notice my point about Malkin misrepresenting a pretty key fact, since you didn’t respond.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 9:11 pm #
“And which office was Reagan running for while still filming Borax ads?”
My apologies. I didn’t realize that when you wrote, “To the sociopath, all people â€â€even their own children are potential props,” you were simply referring to politicians. I suppose you’re fine with actors using their children as props with which to sell soap. Incidentally, I’m not particularly outraged by either.
“That’s the least relevant response I’ve ever read in a comments thread.”
I doubt that. I’ve seen those unreformed socialists that come here to argue with you guys. Not exactly the sharpest pinkos on the block.
Comment by TmjUtah on 7/23 @ 9:14 pm #
Well, if The One finds himself tied with Angry McOldguy come late October, he’ll take those kids to the volcano and teach them about drawing straws.
Our political theater… is become simply theater.
The other day, on another thread, a commenter asked what must Gen. Patreus think, now that he’s seen the Chosen One at length across a table.
I humbly submit that the list of bad people to do is undergoing a high level amplification and acceleration of schedule, and further that the general will probably be spending a lot of quality time with his best opposites in the Iraqi and Afghani military and government.
He bears bad news; time is running out.
Comment by ccoffer on 7/23 @ 9:29 pm #
I just saw a Chocolate Dashboard Jesus Tour photo at Drudge which smacked my gob. Did that lowlife speck of hamster shit really hoist his fucking logo at the Wailing Wall? Really?
Comment by psycho... on 7/23 @ 9:30 pm #
For the first time ever, just now, reading that, I wanted McCain to be President, just so that for four years, finally, the “Mc” in every lefty Presidential nickname would make sense.
But I’m better now.
Comment by Pablo on 7/23 @ 9:32 pm #
The photo is described as being outside their home on June 19th. Unless People sat on this piece for a month, the pic isn’t related to the interview.
I’m far more concerned that he’d bring the girls to a hatey cesspool like Trinity.
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 9:35 pm #
BB
But Nixon didn’t
I’m not quite old enough to remember the 1960 run so maybe you can point to those interviews where he used Tricia and Julie as props. By 1968 they were no longer minors.
I’m assuming you just didn’t notice my point about Malkin misrepresenting a pretty key fact,
did she? You state:
what are your thoughts on the fact that Malkin claims that Obama had his children “sit down for an interviewâ€Â
Malkin states:
Obama had them sit down for a People magazine spread.
And that they did, as evidenced by the photos. If O! didn’t want to further expose his girls to publicity, he could have withdrawn permission to publish the photos. Some were new, some were old and I’m sure the old ones were given by camp O! to People.
Barry disdains running on his experience because he has none, save for being a Community Organizer (and not such a hot shot one either), so he runs on his judgment.
I question his judgment, from his wanting to lose in Iraq to his quasi-pimping of his daughters.
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 9:40 pm #
Pablo
from People
The Obamas opened up to PEOPLE – first, at the family’s three-story home in Chicago in June, and again on July 4, at a park in Butte, Mont., where the family campaigned and celebrated Malia’s birthday –
The first two pics containing the girls came from those two interviews, June 19 and July 4.
People was allowed to hang around as Barry kicked a soccer ball with his kids and then watch and photograph the kids “on the bus.”
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 9:46 pm #
Oops, the “interview” line I attributed to Malkin was bad cribbage on my part, so you win that one. But, again, they didn’t have the kids “sit down” for anything after Obama had said he wouldn’t; those pictures are all from before the date when Obama said there would be no more interviews.
“If O! didn’t want to further expose his girls to publicity, he could have withdrawn permission to publish the photos.”
He never said he didn’t want to “further expose his girls to publicity,” and he certainly never said he was not going to allow photographs of his daughters to appear anywhere - that would be insane, and unprecedented for an American candidate to my knowledge. So, again, I think the fact that Obama did not allow his kids to be interviewed after he said he wouldn’t helps to support my assertion that Obama did not allow his kids to be interviewed after he said he wouldn’t. You probably disagree.
Comment by Pablo on 7/23 @ 9:49 pm #
Ah, OK.
So that’s contemporaneous with the Access Hollywood piece and prior to his “We won’t be doing that again” statement. I dunno. It seems like thin gruel to me, and there are so many great big clubs to repel him with.
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 9:53 pm #
BB
You’re parsing again. If you don’t want your kids as the focus of publicity, you stop making or allowing them to be the focus of publicity.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Barry cannot have it both ways. He cannot say “oh don’t say anything BAD about my wife” when he sends her out as his surrogate. He cannot say “I’m not going to have my kids as a focus ever again” then he ALLOWS a celeb-zine to run a spread bragging about their access to FAMILY Obama inside their home and at the birthday celebration.
Either the kids are private or they aren’t. Barry is doing nothing to back up his words.
His judgment is highly suspect.
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 9:56 pm #
Pablo
That’s why I did the Litella thing. It’s not a huge policy thingy, like his outregeous “I would still not support the surge” or “anything good that happened wasn’t the surge, it was just coincidence” statements, but even this kerfuffle about the kids just is another papercut on his judgment.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 9:56 pm #
Oops, forgot one:
“I’m not quite old enough to remember the 1960 run so maybe you can point to those interviews where he used Tricia and Julie as props. By 1968 they were no longer minors.”
I’m a youngster myself, but you may be familiar with the Checkers Speech Nixon gave in 1952 during his vice-presidential run, in which he brought his young daughter out as a “prop” (as our friend Toby might say) for his defense with regards to a campaign contribution scandal.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 10:03 pm #
“You’re parsing again. If you don’t want your kids as the focus of publicity, you stop making or allowing them to be the focus of publicity.”
He allowed existing photographs of his children to appear in a magazine. This does not contradict his assertion that he would not let them be interviewed, or anything else he said. It only contradicts your demonstrably inaccurate description of what Obama said.
“Barry cannot have it both ways. He cannot say “oh don’t say anything BAD about my wife†when he sends her out as his surrogate.”
I agree with you on that.
“He cannot say “I’m not going to have my kids as a focus ever again†then he ALLOWS a celeb-zine to run a spread bragging about their access to FAMILY Obama inside their home and at the birthday celebration.”
Again, he didn’t say that. He said he wouldn’t let them be interviewed again. Do you acknowledge that this is what he said, or do we need to look at the article again? Let’s do it just for fun:
Barack Obama said it was a mistake to allow his daughters to be interviewed extensively by “Access Hollywood,†and he will not allow it to happen again.
“I think that we got carried away in the moment,†the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Wednesday. [...]
“We wouldn’t do it again, and we won’t be doing it again,†the candidate said flatly.
So… I’m looking real hard for the part where he says he won’t allow photographs of his daughters to appear in magazines, and I’m just not seeing it.
Comment by Darleen on 7/23 @ 10:17 pm #
BB
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncheckers.html
here’s the checker’s speech video. Funny, I don’t see Tricia on it.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 10:19 pm #
“here’s the checker’s speech video. Funny, I don’t see Tricia on it.”
That is funny. You should try listening to it.
Comment by Log Cabin on 7/23 @ 11:00 pm #
The Checker’s Speech, BB? Jeez, how far back you gonna go? I hear that Andrew Jackson’s daughter was interviewed by The Farmer’s Almanac about having fun at harvest time dances.
You sure are having to reach just to play the “everyone does it” card.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/23 @ 11:07 pm #
“The Checker’s Speech, BB? Jeez, how far back you gonna go? I hear that Andrew Jackson’s daughter was interviewed by The Farmer’s Almanac about having fun at harvest time dances. You sure are having to reach just to play the ‘everyone does it’ card.”
I know, right? Here I was, being asked about whether or not Nixon did something during his political career, and I go all the way back to Nixon’s political career to go find something that happened during Nixon’s political career! You can imagine my embarrassment!
Comment by The Lost Dog on 7/23 @ 11:10 pm #
Darlen.
As usual, a great post.
Bottom line.
Obama will use anything to impress us with the fact that he is just a normal American, when the truth is, he ain’t.
Those of us who grew up in the fifties and sixties know just who this guy really is.
For those who didn’t graduate before the mid-seventies, he IS the Messiah.
That’s some scary shit, huh?
Comment by The Lost Dog on 7/23 @ 11:15 pm #
Darleen,
I just wanted to add another “e” to your name in my last comment.
Nothing personal. I think my lapse might have something to do with the vitamin water that I have been drinking…
You know. If I had done that on purpose, I would have spelled it “Darlin’”.
Comment by TheGeezer on 7/24 @ 6:26 am #
I have got to say that the exchanges between Darleen and BB are interesting.
Darleen, I will never, ever, contradict you, but cower admiringly in the lurker shadows.
The Obama exposure goes on. Thank you.
Comment by TheGeezer on 7/24 @ 6:27 am #
LD: Did you see the German poster? It almost made me salute…
Comment by Darleen on 7/24 @ 7:06 am #
BB
You should try listening to it
Funny, but you said:
he brought his young daughter out
You didn’t say “mentioned his daughter”. Are you attempting to make an equivalency argument that mentioning one’s offspring in a speech is the same as inviting media inside your home to photograph, video tape and interview your children?
Comment by Barrett Brown on 7/24 @ 9:14 am #
“Funny, but you said:
he brought his young daughter out
You didn’t say “mentioned his daughterâ€Â.”
I know. I said “brought out.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brought
“5. to cause to appear or occur in the mind; evoke or recall.”
The English language is neat, isn’t it?
“Are you attempting to make an equivalency argument that mentioning one’s offspring in a speech is the same as inviting media inside your home to photograph, video tape and interview your children?”
Uh, no. I’m saying that allowing the media to “photograph, video tape and interview your children” (gasp!) is arguably less innocuous then using your daughter as a prop in one’s defense with regards to a potentially career-shattering scandal (not that I fault either Nixon or Obama for either). It’s all about how you phrase it. Right now, of course, it’s convenient for you to write off Nixon’s speech as simply “mentioning” his daughter, whereas one could just as accurately term it as having “focused on a sweet moment involving his daughter for the purpose of political gain.”