CNN’s John Roberts apparently took David Gergen’s advice from last week, and during his interview of Barack Obama on Monday’s "American Morning," declared out of the gate that he wasn’t going to ask the Democrat from Illinois about his former pastor. "I want to just stipulate at the beginning of this interview, we are declaring a Reverend Wright-free zone today. So, no questions about Reverend Wright. Our viewers want us to move on, so this morning we're going to move on. Is that okay with you?" Obama reacted favorably to this declaration. "Fair enough. That sounds just fine."
After getting this issue out of the way, Roberts asked Obama about his rejection of the gas tax holiday proposal, his solution to the high energy prices, and about his "more ambiguous" answer to the question of what he would do as president if Iran struck Israel with nuclear weapons. On this question, Obama continued his ambiguity. When Roberts asked, "If Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon, would you use the United States’ nuclear arsenal against Iran," Obama answered, "John, I'm not going to speculate."
During a segment on CNN’s "Newsroom" program after Rev. Wright’s presentation at the National Press Club on April 28, David Gergen made the suggestion that "it’s time for him [Rev. Wright] to get off the stage, and frankly, for the media, I suggest, to move on."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Chicken game
May 5, 2008 - 13:06 ET by KC MulvilleIn game theory, when you're playing chicken (which is what the Iran nuclear negotiation is), that's the time when you do make specific assurances of exactly what you're going to do. In other games, you try to leave wiggle room and be ambiguous, but in chicken, you have to specific.
Why is Iran proceeding, despite American threats? It's because they're gambling that America won't stand behind their threats. That's why you have to establish credibility. When Obama waffles and "won't speculate," he's giving Iran precisely what they want - ambiguity.
On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Obama displayed his inexperience. His policy for Iran was that we have to start talking, and if Iran doesn't respond, we have to offer them some carrots. Obama must think he's being magnanimous, but instead, he's telling Iran that if they hold away from negotiations, we're going to bribe them back to the table. Well, guess what Iran is going to do? They're going to stay away from talking until Obama promises to give away everything they want. Then they'll talk. But by then, it'll be too late.
Iran is going to play this guy like a cheap fiddle.
"When Obama waffles and
May 5, 2008 - 14:30 ET by ckc1227"When Obama waffles and "won't
speculate," he's giving Iran precisely what they want - ambiguity."
He'll give them even more than that once he's elected. Why do you think he's waffling? Because if he was honest about what he'd do(or, more specifically, not do), it would be over for him.
"Our viewers want us to move
May 5, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Killgrave"Our viewers want us to move on."
I'll break it down even further:
Viewers = MoveOn
So let's just drop all pretense, shall we? News of the left, from the left, for the left.
Our viewers in the control room
May 5, 2008 - 14:05 ET by PawpawNCNN viewers in the Control Room want to move on!! The public wants to hear more but everyone is so afraid of being called racist that they dare not take it further. It is about race, but the ARMS RACE, and we need to know all about every candidate and how they feel on such!
Bias
May 5, 2008 - 13:27 ET by sanergononlibI will not be watching CNN in the future because your news department is indeed biased. Howard Dean
It's obvious that once
May 5, 2008 - 13:52 ET by nicksmith112It's obvious that once Obama clinches the nomination there will be a Wright and Ayers media blackout.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
CNN's viewers
May 5, 2008 - 15:54 ET by ArminiusI suppose these are the same viewers who have told CNN that the economy is now "Issue Number One."
If Obama himself has said the Wright issue is legitimate, shouldn't CNN cover it regardless of what their miniscule viewership says?
www.sinsofthehusband.com
Whoa. Just a second here. I
May 5, 2008 - 17:08 ET by Chris NormanWhoa. Just a second here. I thought one of the self-proclaimed tenets of the media was to cover "the tough issues" even when the viewers don't want to hear them, because it's "for their own good". Is Roberts going to poll the viewers from now on to see what questions he should ask? This is one of the slimiest statements uttered by a member of the MSM in quite a while.
I think the Wright/Obama
May 5, 2008 - 17:26 ET by JerI think the Wright/Obama issue has been sufficiently flogged by the media over the past several weeks, and, it will no doubt be resurrected later if Obama is the nominee and those infamous RNC or 527 'morphing' ads become ubiquitous.
Let's give it a rest for awhile. [Fat chance.]
Jer
<blockquote>Our viewers
May 5, 2008 - 17:30 ET by usinkoreaThe Rev. Wright controversy has quickly become more of a statement about the American media than it is of Obama.
The Obama relation was clear cut and impossible for him to wipe out. He couldn't erase 20 years of patronage to Wright's church, and he couldn't erase what Wright had said. He also couldn't embrace what Wright stands for and survive as a national politician.
In short, it was a no-win situation for Obama.
So, subsequent events have done little because they only add to those fact.
However, the media's handling of the affair has been very telling and keeps getting worse in defining just how bias the media is in America.
They tried to ignore the story and not show it to the American people, but.....damn......those pesky alternative news sources (radio and internet) wouldn't keep quiet.
Then, they tried to defend Obama by saying that what Wright said wasn't really that controversial --- because they basically agree with him...
But, when the interest of the American people was sparked by what they heard in alternative sources, the media has had to come up with different angles.
None of which are working.
With their latest return to the, "Nothing to see here. Let's move along. Nothing to see here...." message, the are simply flailing away like a drowning swimmer....
It's pathetic......and I really didn't see how the media could look even more pathetic in my eyes.....but they keep on finding ways....
An excellent
May 5, 2008 - 18:42 ET by DEVILDOCMOManalysis, usinkorea. I could not agree more.