Lynn Sweet

Thoughts On Obama's Public Financing Decision (Part 2)

Josh Kalven — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:49:44 -0700

In my first post on this subject, I endorsed Barack Obama's recent decision to opt out of the public financing system. I noted that the move makes obvious sense from a tactical standpoint and further argued that, within Obama's fundraising apparatus, small donors have an unprecedented amount of influence -- resulting in a balance that any reformed public financing system should encourage. In this post, I'll address how McCain has gotten a pass from the media in the midst of this controversy.

John McCain's accusations of an egregious, public financing flip-flop on Obama's part have been broadcast far and wide in the past week. What has been infuriating about this latest controversy -- and McCain's central role in exacerbating it -- is the lack of acknowledgement by the press corps and the editorial boards of how McCain gamed the public finance system this election year.

In case you don't know the details of McCain's maneuvering, here's a helpful recap from Media Matters' Jamison Foser:

John McCain said he would take public financing for the Republican primaries. Then he used the promise of that public financing to help secure a loan for his campaign. Then, after he wrapped up the Republican nomination, he abruptly decided he did not want to be bound by the limits on campaign fundraising and spending that accompany public financing, so he announced that he had changed his mind.

But Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason sent McCain a letter saying that he cannot unilaterally opt out of the public financing system without FEC approval -- a letter the McCain campaign ignored. If McCain cannot opt out of the system unilaterally, he has broken the law by raising and spending funds in excess of legal limits, and continues to do so each day. Even if McCain isn't breaking the law, he has already broken his word and "reversed himself" on the question of whether he would take public funding for the primaries.

Referring to the national coverage, Foser writes: "I have seen no indication that a single reporter has asked McCain to reconcile his criticism of Obama with his own on-again, off-again relationship with the public financing system."

While this is obviously a much more significant issue at the national level, it's also been a problem in our local coverage.

By my count, the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet has published eight blog posts on the issue since June 19 -- the day Obama announced his decision. Three of them simply repeated criticism of Obama from the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. One featured a press release from the group Democracy 21 blasting Obama. Two others offered evidence of Obama's "evolution" on the issue. And here's how she headlined her post on the Meet the Press discussion between Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last Sunday: "Graham on 'Meet the Press' on Obama broken pledge on public campaign financing: 'What he did by breaking his promise is reinforce every bad thing wrong with politics.' " Before cutting-and-pasting the MTP transcript, Sweet described Biden as "defending the undefendable for Mr. Obama."

Nowhere in Sweet's eight blog posts were McCain's campaign finance shenanigans mentioned. (Sweet has also commented on the controversy in repeated appearances on MSNBC.)

Meanwhile, over at The Beachwood Reporter last week, Steve Rhodes responded to the news of Obama's decision this way:

The spin from the Obama camp - particularly in its latest e-mail to supporters - is wholly disingenuous. A good rule of thumb: How would you feel if the situation was reversed? In other words, Obamaphiles would be lambasting John McCain to high heaven right now if he pulled this move.

Say what you will about the Obama camp's spin, McCain pulled his own "move" on public financing, possibly in violation of the law. A lot of folks on the left have cried foul. And the media has paid little attention to the matter, while repeating his attacks on Obama.

Finally, on Friday's edition of Chicago Tonight, Chicago Magazine contributing editor Bob Reed said that, fortunately for Obama, "not that many people care about campaign finance -- maybe with the exception of John McCain":

To many in the media, McCain will always be the lonely crusader for campaign finance reform and comprehensive immigration policy. He'll always be the maverick who stood up to the Bush administration on tax cuts and torture. Nevermind that he has compromised his integrity on every one of those issues.

In related news, one of the reasons McCain has escaped scrutiny on his gaming of the public financing system is that the FEC board has been unable to function due to a six-month disagreement in the Senate over one of Bush's nominees. That impasse came to end yesterday, as the five new commissioners were confirmed by the Senate. Hopefully, we'll be hearing more about the legality of McCain's actions in the near future -- from a fully-functioning FEC, if not the media.

Lynn Sweet Watch: What About Clarke?

Josh Kalven — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:41:16 -0700

In her Sun-Times column today, Lynn Sweet reports on the sparring between the Obama and McCain camps yesterday over foreign policy. The piece is headlined: "Obama 'delusional'? McCain, ex-CIA chief doubt Obama's readiness to deal with terrorists." In it, she quotes former CIA head James Woolsey and McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann wailing away on Obama's foreign policy approach:

During a McCain campaign conference call with reporters, former CIA head James Woolsey said Obama's support of giving terrorists access to U.S. courts was an "extremely dangerous and an extremely naive approach to terrorism."

McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said if Obama "got that 3 a.m. phone call" -- a reference to an ad Sen. Hillary Clinton ran before the Texas and Ohio primaries questioning Obama's experience -- his response would be to "call the lawyers in the Justice Department." He also called Obama "delusional." [...]

Scheunemann also invoked a stereotype as he tried to make the point that terrorists are not common criminals. These terrorists, he said, were not "your run-of-the mill drug dealers on the South Side of Chicago."

In turn, Sweet devotes one graf to Obama's response:

"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could've pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane. "In part because of their failed strategies, we've got bin Laden still sending out audiotapes, so I don't think they have much standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9/11."

It's a decent rebuttal. Nonetheless, when a low-information voter reads about a terrorism-related back-and-forth between a politician and a former CIA director, whose argument do you think they're more likely to trust? That's why it would have been nice if Sweet had noted that Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism adviser under the Clinton and Bush administrations, hammered the McCain camp hours before Obama himself responded.

During a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Clarke described himself as "disgusted" by the McCain campaign's tactics and accused the Republican surrogates of "completely and utterly distorting" the GOP record on terrorism. Clarke also noted that Obama has a "comprehensive terrorism strategy" and demanded that the McCain camp "show where in the record Senator Obama has ever said he is favor of a pure law enforcement approach."

Take a listen to his comments:

Internal mp3

Lynn Sweet Watch: Obama And The "Constant Sore"

Josh Kalven — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:13:26 -0700

What is it with the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet and Barack Obama's comments about Israel?

Back in March, we noted her suggestion that Obama hadn't addressed Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements regarding Israel (when, in fact, he had). Now she's reprinting Republican press releases that blatantly misrepresent Obama's recent remarks on the Middle East.

As Rob at Illinois Reason astutely pointed out, in a Sun-Times blog post yesterday evening headlined "GOP hits Obama over Israel," Sweet copy-and-pasted a statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) criticizing the Illinois Senator for comments made in a recent interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. From the release:

“Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims. Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’ It’s another sign that Obama is part of the broken Washington Americans are rejecting."

Sweet also included this statement from Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA):

“It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel."

But did Obama actually call Israel a "constant sore" or a "constant wound"? No, he didn't.

(Click "Read More" to continue ...)

He actually used those terms to refer to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

Rob also notes that while Sweet simply reprinted the GOP's distortions, some journalists took the time to both report on the attacks and point out that they're misleading. For instance, here's ABC's Jake Tapper:

Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.

Lynn Sweet Watch: Obama, Wright, and Israel

Josh Kalven — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:55:41 -0700

Appearing on MSNBC yesterday, the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet falsely suggested that Barack Obama hasn't addressed Rev. Jeramiah Wright's controversial comments about Israel. At issue are remarks about Israel in the "pastor pages" of Trinity United Church of Christ's newsletter and particularly their republication of an LA Times op-ed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook.

Here's the exchange with host Andrea Mitchell:

MITCHELL: In one bulletin, the remarks of a Hamas leader were reprinted and circulated to the parish -- to the congregation, rather -- quoting the Hamas leader, "Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crime carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?" [U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief] Mort Zuckerman and Lynn Sweet rejoin me again.

Lynn, how difficult is this going to be for Obama? Does he have to do more explaining? Does he have to meet perhaps once again with Jewish leaders to try to reassure them that these are not his views as well?

SWEET: Andrea, yes, yes, yes, and yes on everything you're saying. Senator Obama's been trying to spend much of the last year in shoring up his support in the Jewish communities. He had a meeting a few weeks ago in Cleveland with 100 Jewish leaders there and activists. If you want to cut him slack and cut him a break on what he knew or didn't know about Jeremiah Wright's sermons, when you have your church bulletin print some of this stuff and you attend it over years, how could he not address it?

But contrary to Sweet's suggestion that Obama hasn't "address[ed]" the issue, Obama already "condemned" Wright's "views on Israel" in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), as Media Matters pointed out.

From the March 20 JTA article:

A pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church's bulletin is "outrageously wrong," Barack Obama said. [...]

"I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin," Obama said in a statement emailed to JTA late Thursday, and referring to critics who noted that Obama had been in church when Wright had made controversial statements. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor."

Sun-Times' Sweet Fabricates Obama Flip-Flop

Josh Kalven — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:58:07 -0700

During his speech in Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama said the following about his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes."

In a blog post this afternoon, the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet asserts that this passage contradicts Obama's statement in a March 14 interview with the paper that he "wasn't in church" when Wright made the controversial comments repeatedly aired on the cable news channels in the past week. Here's the title of Sweet's post:

"Obama now says he heard Wright make controversial remarks. Told Sun-Times Friday 'wasn't in church' during those sermons."

Sweet describes Obama's comment during the speech as an "admission" that he "personally heard some of Wright’s fiery rhetoric." But in suggesting a flip-flop on Obama's part, Sweet assumes that Obama's original remark to the Sun-Times represented a blanket denial that he had ever heard Wright say anything remotely controversial.

In fact, Obama's denial during the Sun-Times interview last Friday -- which Sweet reprints in her column -- was fairly specific. He said:

"I put out a statement today very clear about my clear rejection of the statements [by Wright] that have caused controversy. I'll be honest with you. I wasn't in church when any of those sermons were issued."

Obama denied being in attendance when Wright made the comments "that have caused controversy." -- i.e., the particular remarks that have been repeated endlessly throughout the media. In his March 14 statement, Obama referred to these specific comments by Wright as "some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents."

But rather than entertain the obvious possibility that both of Obama's statements could be true -- that he previously heard Wright make "remarks that could be considered controversial," but did not hear the particular comments highlighted by the media -- Sweet instead chooses to cast Obama as "admitt[ing]" something that he had purportedly denied.

Moreover, she concludes her blog post with a time-honored journalistic tradition -- attempting to read the candidate's mind:

Obama probably made that admission in his speech knowing that reporters were trying to determine if he was in church for one of Wright’s divisive missives.