Showing posts with label Press Conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Press Conference. Show all posts

Obama Lectures Pesky Media For “Wasting Question” And My Personal Questions About Blago Comments On Obama.

12/17/2008 01:28:00 PM

(0) Comments

Gee, what a surprise.  Maybe Obama needs to learn, just like Rahm, that if you avoid the topic, you are going to just get questioned more.  Welcome to being a major part of government Obama.  And if you think that you can “pick and choose” which reporters to ask questions, that is true however, I’ve noticed that many MSM reporters, especially those in Chicago, are now asking questions in articles that we, the bloggers, have been asking for months.

Now Obama has been much more “transparent” and open to questions in comparison to previous Administrations however, taking questions and answering questions are two completely different matters.

The reporter in question, John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, asked some very simple questions.  He wanted to know if there should be a special election to replace Illinois Governor Blagojevich, and about contacts with the Governor.  McCormick has a legitimate concern.  And McCormick is not new to asking questions on things people don’t like.

I think Obama could have answered at least the first question on the first time, and then simply stated that he couldn’t answer other questions because he had been asked/told by the US Attorney’s Office to not answer them as U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had asked Obama to postpone releasing the investigation’s results until December 22nd with Fitzgerald’s office later issuing a one-sentence statement confirming the request, so that it can “conduct certain interviews.”  It’s not that difficult to say “I can’t answer your questions because I have been asked by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to not answer them until next week.  I am sorry, but that is the way it has to be to ensure the validity of the investigation.”  Is that so difficult?

Instead Obama decided to be a jerk by lecturing and scolding the reporter and choosing to answer a third question by the reporter about his jump shot in what could be a Saturday Night Live skit.  The brush off’s and deflecting the press are now becoming more and more common with Obama and reporters.  And it is still yet to be seen exactly how much the Obama team knew about Blago, and if they knew he was selling the seat, then why didn’t they turn him in, especially since Obama is so hell bent on changing the corruption in government?  Is Obama’s own state exempt from being busted?  Especially since Michael Sneed, from the Chicago Sun-Times, even reports that Rahm is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds.  That’s a lot of conversations for just saying “Hello.  How ya doin’?” 

Additionally, it seems to now become a trend with Obama to avoid taking a position on virtually every new issue since his election, wanting to only talk about his team, or what he’s going to do to change our world in his press conferences. 

Mark Whitaker, NBC Washington bureau chief, said that reporters have not been aggressive enough during Obama’s post-election pressers.  “Our job is to hold him to account,” Whitaker said, adding that he thinks “we’re going to have to get tougher.”

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter followed up:  “We need the Sam Donaldsons of the world.”

Today in another episode of the “Obama Show”, at a press conference just minutes ago, Obama was asked about how he squared his commitment to transparency in government with the tight-lipped response he and his advisers have had to questions about their dealings with the scandal-tarnished governor.  Obama said that it had been “frustrating” to maintain silence but that questions will be answered next week – which happens to be when he will be in Hawaii on break.

“It’s a little bit frustrating.  There has been a little bit of speculation in the press that I would like to correct immediately.  We are abiding by the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office,” Obama said.  “But it’s not going to be that long.  By next week, you guys will have the answers to all of your questions.”

As Obama spoke, his political adviser David Axelrod and chief of staff designate Rahm watched.  Axelrod stood motionless, hands on hips, a frown partially hidden by his moustache, who was checking a message on his Blackberry when the question was asked, smiled in faint amusement, put the Blackberry away and watched the rest of Obama’s response with his legs crossed at his ankles, arms crossed and a single finger pressed across his lips.  He was still smiling.  Such a wonderful display of “superior mentality” in body language.

Axelrod had previously said that Obama had directly spoken to Gov. Blago about the Senate vacancy on November 23, 2008 on FOX News Chicago report.  “I know he’s talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surface, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.”  On Tuesday of this week, Axelrod issued a statement retracting his previous statement.  “I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy.  They did not then or at any time discuss the subject",” said Axelrod.

THE PAST

Another example of Obama “scolding” the press was when he made his announcement about appointing Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State.  When asked about how his opinion had changed so much from the campaign time, Obama replied “this is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign” adding that many things said were because of the “heat of the campaign”, minimizing statements he had said against Hillary Clinton and her experience in foreign affairs choosing to attack the reporter instead.

Back on December 3rd,  Campbell Brown of CNN had a lecture for Obama about the press after Obama’s statements to the press about appointing Hillary Clinton:

“There we go again.  The pesky media – all we want to do is have a little fun, stir things up for our own amusement.  I mean, really, how silly of that reporter to dare ask you, Mr. President-Elect, how it is that you completely mocked Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy experience just a few months ago, and yet today, you think there is no one more qualified than she to lead your foreign policy team?  It’s a clever device, treating a question so dismissively in an attempt to delegitimize it, but it is a legitimate question.  As annoying how you may have found it, it is a fair question.  It was only in March of this year that Greg Craig, your new White House counsel, put out a memo over four pages long, outlining by point Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy claims, calling them all exaggerated, just words, not supported by her record.

Now, look, maybe you regret what you said about Hillary Clinton.  Maybe it was, as you suggested today, all just said in the heat of the campaign.  If that is the case, and you are both now rising above it, then you deserve to be commended for that.  And you could have been explicit in saying all of that today.  You could have explained the evolution of your thinking, instead of belittling a question you didn’t like.

Mr. President-Elect, reporters, we hope, are going to ask you a lot of annoying questions over the next four years.  Get used to it.  That is the job of the media, to hold you accountable.  But this isn’t just about the media.  It’s about the American people, many of whom voted for you because of what you said during the campaign, and they have a right to know which of those things you meant and which you didn’t.  Apparently, as you made clear today, you didn’t mean what you said about Hillary Clinton.  SO, what else didn’t you mean?  The media is going to be asking, and you were wrong today.  Annoying questions are about more than just the press having fun.  Annoying questions are about the press doing its job and the people’s right to know.

Many Obama supporters are pulling a phrase from the campaign, calling the questions about Obama and his team’s relationship with Blago a manufactured “smear campaign,” and harassment of Obama by reporters.   And in fact choosing different news outlets that focus only on the “good” of Obama, and not facts of everything.  I’m sorry, I didn’t know that asking simple questions about a major topic, that Obama has said only “We are not involved” or something to that effect isn’t good enough.  Please tell me when anyone has EVER taken any government officials word as the straight truth on a scandal?  Or are the Obama supporters simply ready to take Obama at every word he says without questioning?  Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose.

And one thing that no one but Chicago newspapers, seems to be picking up on is that Eric Holder, Obama’s pick for Attorney General, was Gov. Blago’s pick to sort out the mess involving Illinois’ long-dormant casino license.  Blago and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder’s role as “special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board” – a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington D.C. law firm up to $300K.  Eventually however, Holder was not hired, and Blago said on May 18th, 2004, that he was scrapping Holder’s probe.  Holder, however, omitted that  from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week – signed by Holder this past Sunday – five days after Blago’s arrest. 

Obama’s team commented on the matter with Cutter, the Obama team spokeswoman saying “Holder and his firm receive no compensation from the state for this preparatory work.” She added that “The 2004 press conference was not memorable because Holder’s legal work for the State of Illinois never materialized.” Such a convenient slipping of Holder’s mind on the matter and such a lie.  If you are asked if you have had any relationship with a person, I think the above qualifies.  But according to the Obama camp, since Holden wasn’t paid, then there’s no reason to talk about it and disclose it.  Gee, I’m all “fuzzy” over how factual the report from the Obama camp on the internal investigation is going to be.

RANT ON AND QUESTIONS ABOUT INCRIMINATING BLAGO COMMENTS

My problem in all of this is with the media, is that many newspapers chose to not report important information during the campaign due to fear of repercussions of legal action and being “blackballed” out of interviews.  Why would the press actually start doing their job now?  And if Obama or any of his team members expect Fitzgerald and his prosecutors to be as accommodating as the press, they are in for a big surprise.  Just do a bit of research about Fitzgerald indicting and convicting former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby.

Now Obama has promised to release the full account of his team’s Blago ties next week, but not before December 22nd, just in time for Christmas, right?  First, let’s see if he makes good on that promise, especially considering he will conveniently be in Hawaii next week for the holiday, thus unavailable for comment and second, let’s see exactly what and how much he releases.  Time for the first real example of how transparent his Administration is going to be.  Of course, we all have to remember that the investigation was conducted by Obama’s lawyers, and not an outside independent agency.

Obama needs to realize that unless certain questions are answered in the upcoming release of the report, that this little press problem isn’t going to go away.  Notably, the question of which members of Obama’s team spoke with Blago’s staff about the Senate seat, the extent of the contact and whether anyone on the president-elect’s team knew of any illegal attempt by the governor to trade the vacated seat.  And how Obama plans to address the fact that Blago, according to the FBI tapes has been quoted to have said the following about Obama and the Senate seat:

“he [Obama] has to give this motherf***er, his Senator.  F*** him.  For nothing?  F*** him!”  And even if the governor were to appoint a candidate favored by the Obama team, Blago said, “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation.”

If no one in Obama’s camp knew about Blago trying to sell the seat, Blago’s comments do not make any sense.  I am very curious as to how Obama is going to wiggle his way out of that one, claiming that no one on his team knew that Blago was trying to sell the seat yet Blago’s comment seem to suggest that Obama and/or his team refused to go along with the “pay to play” scheme.  The question remains of how Blago knew that Obama was not willing to give him anything in exchange for the Senate seat and with whom Blago was speaking with.  And the person that was speaking to Blago or anyone on his Administration report failed to report this to the authorities.

It has been stated by Fitzgerald that “there’s no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it, and that’s all I can say.”  His comment did not close the door on the possibility that Obama or someone on his staff may have known of some aspect of the governor’s demands.

What many people don’t seem to know is that Blago, according to the FBI, wanted an appointment to the Obama cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human services, a well-paying job, or huge campaign contributions as the price for naming Obama’s successor.  Blago was overheard by the FBI saying “I want to make money”, complaining he was “financially hurting.”

And as for Blago searching for a job for his wife, “Is there a pay here, with these guys, with her,” to work for  firm in Washington or New York, he is reported to have asked.  In the FBI affidavit, it is stated that Blago had been told by an adviser “the president-elect can get Rod Blagojevich’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the president-elect’s pick to the senate.”  No, there is no discussion of money, but a barter for positions.  That is still illegal.  I am very curious as to how that one is going to be handled.

The bottom line is that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t get emotional over simple questions, even if you have to say, “I can’t comment now because I’ve been asked not to by the U.S. Attorneys Office.”  And if you have nothing to hide, then you don’t have a problem with an opinion on the entire matter.  And team members don’t conveniently “forget” about relationships with other people, recanting a few days later that “oh, I made a mistake.”

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

A Really Big Shoe For Bush In Iraq….

12/14/2008 06:22:00 PM

(0) Comments

bush-shoes-01“T his is a goodbye kiss, you dog!” shouted a man in Arabic just before he threw two shoes at President Bush today in Iraq.  What?  Iraq you say?  Bush is in Iraq?  Well, the President took a James Bond-esque ultra-secret trip to Iraq that was not reported until Sunday morning eastern time. 

With little advance notice, White House officials told 13 members of the President’s press corps about the hush-hush trip to Baghdad, instructed them to pack their bags and swore them to secrecy. 

To keep other reporters out of the loop, the White House put out false schedules detailing activities planned for Bush in Washington on Sunday.  The White House stated that he would attend the taping of Turner Network Television’s annual “Christmas in Washington” benefit concert at the National Building Museum.

While the press corps embarked, Air Force One remained hidden inside it’s hanger.  Bush arrived through an unmarked entrance at Andrews Air Force Base sporting his signature attempt at a disguise – a tan Windbreaker, casual black pants and a baseball cap marked with “43”.  The number signifies that his the nation’s 43rd president. 

Air Force One had left the Washington area on Saturday night.  The window shades were drawn for the entire flight.

The trip to Iraq was to hail “progress in the unpopular war that defines his presidency” and to sign and celebrate the recent U.S.-Iraq security agreement calling for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011 and to meet with Iraqui Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  The document, known in Iraq as the U.S. troops withdrawal agreement, was passed at the Iraqi parliament last month.

“There is still more work to be done,” Bush said after the meeting, adding that the agreement puts Iraq on solid footing.  “The war is not over,” Bush said, adding that “It is decisively on it’s way to being won.”

bush-shoes-02 At that point a man stood up and yelled “This is a gift from the Iraqis.  This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” and threw his shoe.  Bush ducked, smiling the entire time.  The man then yelled, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq,” throwing a second shoe, which like the first, ended up hitting the wall behind Bush.

The man was grabbed first by an Iraqi reporter before Iraqi Security and Secret Service could drag the man to the floor.  The infamous Secret Service that is suppose to guard the President, was a little slow today however, showing up around Bush after the man threw both shoes and was already dragged to the floor.  While pinned on the floor, the man screamed:  “You killed the Iraqis!”  The man was then dragged away, and could be heard screaming in another room.  Two other Iraqi journalists were briefly detained after one of them called the man’s actions “courageous.”

bush-shoes-03 Among Muslims, shoe throwing at someone, or sitting so that the bottom of a shoe faces another person, is considered an insult, according to CNN.  “In traditional Middle Eastern societies, it’s very rude to show someone the bottom of your feet.  So throwing a shoe at someone is very much a way of saying, ‘You’re beneath me. … I hold you in contempt,” says Daniel Byman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  “In Arab parlance, the height of insult is to call somebody a dog and throw a shoe at them.  It sends a poserful cultural message,” says Fawas Gerges, chairman of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence Colelge in Bronxville, NY. 

An examples of said action include Iraquis slapping their shoes on a topped statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square shortly after the city fell to coalition troops in April 2003.  One other example was in 2004, after four American contractors were ambushed and killed in Fallujah, insurgents hanged two corpses from a bridge as people flailed at them with shoes.  And after the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein installed a tile mosaic floor depicting George H.W. Bush in the lobby of Baghdad’s Al-Rashid Hotel where everyone had no choice but to walk over the 41st president’s image.

bush-shoes-04 Although President Bush was not injured during the shoe throwing, somehow White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was “slightly bruised” in the aftermath of the shoe-throwing incident.  Journalists at the scene said she suffered a black eye, with NBC reporting she was hit in the face with a microphone as security wrestled with the man.

The man was later identified as Muthathar al Zaidi, a journalist/reporter for Al-Baghadadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.  Prior he drew attention in November 2007 when he was kidnapped while on his way to work in central Baghdad.  He was released three days later.

Al-Baghdadia issued a statement later demanding their reporter be released.  “Any action taken against Muntathar will remind us of the actions and behavior taken by the reign of the dictator and the violence, the random arrests, the mass graves and confiscations of freedom from the people,” the board of Baghdadiyah TV said.

Bush’s comment on the matter?  “And if you want some – if you want the facts, it’s a size 10 shoe that he threw.”  He was also reported to have stated, “So what if a guy threw his shoe at me?”  “Let me talk about the guy throwing his shoe.  It’s one way to gain attention.  It’s like going to a political rally and having people yell at you.  It’s like driving down the street and having people not gesturing with all five fingers….”

On a side note, it was unclear whether the journalist used “odor eaters” in his shoes or tried just a “smelly shoe attack” on the President….

Bush is now in Afghanistan after leaving Iraq, with his plane landing at Baghram Air Base outside Kabul.  He is there to hold talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and address U.S. troops during the visit.

SOURCES:

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Obama Suffers From Foot In Mouth Moment At Press Conference Over Clinton. [EDIT]

12/02/2008 03:07:00 AM

(0) Comments

8292008justsaynoDuring Obama’s fifth press-conference, Peter Baker, who I believe works for the Washington Post, had Obama in a “foot in mouth” moment regarding a question about Hillary Clinton.  Then laughs about how he thinks the press is “having fun” with him over things he has said during his campaign.  And that his justification for saying the things he did about Hillary during the campaign were due to the “heat of a campaign”, thus it was okay for Barack and Michelle to say things negative about Hillary and it was no biggie.

So by that same token, why is it that when things were said about Obama, his lawyers would threaten legal action or call it a “smear” campaign, thus it was not okay?  [The word hypocrite comes to mind.. again.. about Obama.]

And one thought to ponder in all of this is when Obama can’t make good on his promises that he made during his campaign, is he going to fall back on the “heat of the campaign” excuse and not take personal responsibility for his claims and words?

Q:  You talked about the importance just now of having different voices and robust debate within your administration.  But, again, going back to the campaign, you were asked and talked about the qualifications of the – your now – your nominee for secretary of State, and you belittled her travels around the world, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders; and your new White House counsel said that her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy.  I’m wondering whether you could talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring.

Obama:  Look, I’m in – I think this is fun for the press, to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign.

Q:  You quotes, sir.

Obama:  No, I understand.  And I’m – and you’re having fun.  (Laughs)

Q:  I’m asking a question.

Obama:  But the – and there’s nothing wrong with that.  I’m not – I’m not faulting it.  But look, I think if you look at the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the – the heat of the campaign, we share a view that American has to be safe and secure and in order to do that we have to combine military power with strengthened diplomacy.  And we have to build and forge stronger alliances around the world, so that we’re not carrying the burdens and these challenges by ourselves.

I believe that there’s no more effective advocate than Hillary Clinton for that well-rounded view of how we advance American interests.  She has served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. She knows world leaders around the world.  I have had extensive discussions with her both pre-election and post-election about the strategic opportunities that exist out there to strengthen America’s posture in the world.

And I think she is going to be a[n] outstanding secretary of State.  And if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have offered her the job.  And if she didn’t believe that I was equipped to lead this nation at such a difficult time, she would not have accepted.  Okay?

WHAT DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE DO?

The Secretary of State on the federal government level is officially responsibility is for foreign policy (i.e. equivalent to a foreign minister).  The foreign policy is a set of goals outlining how the country will interact with other countries economically, politically, socially and militarily, and to a lesser extent, how the country will interact with non-state actors.  Currently that position in the Bush administration is held by Condoleezza Rice.

A LOOK BACK

Now time for a bit of a time warp back to a few statements between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with emphasis on Hillary’s foreign policy experience.

Nov 20, 2007 – Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama:  “Now voters will judge whether living in foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face.  I think we need a President with more experience than that.”

Feb 25, 2008 – Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama:  “[Obama] wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world’s most intractable problems to advocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation among allies in the most sensitive region of the world.” [..]  “We’ve seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security.  We can’t let that happen again.”

Feb 25, 2008 – Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama (assumed):  “The American people don’t have to guess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis…”

Mar 02, 2008 – Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton:  “When it came to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong.”

Mar 02, 2008 – Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton:  “What precise foreign-policy experience is she claiming that makes her qualified to answer that telephone call at 3 a.m. in the morning?”

Mar 03, 2008 – Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama:  “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I would bring to the White House.  I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House.  And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

Mar 06(ish), 2008 – Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton:  “What exactly is this foreign policy experience?  Was she negotiating treaties?  Was she handling crises?  The answer is no.”

Mar, 2008 – Susan Rice, Obama advisor, on Hillary Clinton:  “There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are first lady.  You don’t get that kind of experience by being married to a commander in chief.”

RANT ON

For Obama to say, “Don’t think too hard about what I say, but always, whatever you do, assume the best of me,” is quite a dangerous proposition.  Additionally, the man has no real world experience when it comes to foreign policy, or for that matter much experience in Washington DC.  He’s had to resort to Clinton-administration retreads to assemble a cabinet using a person who he said previously had no real world experience in foreign policy.

I think Obama needs to learn the definition of a word. 

megalomania
Function:  noun
1:  a mania for great or grandiose performance
2:  a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

And you know, I could always say that Obama lies a lot however, I can’t.  That is because I' don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak the truth; “a lot” seems to imply that he occasionally tells the truth.

But ultimately he made promises during his campaign, are those now going to be just stated in the “heat of the campaign?”

BTW, here is the translation from the Obama doublespeak stated during the press conference:

“You can not believe a damn word that comes from my mouth.  I will do and say anything at all if it makes me look good and allows me to win elections that I am unqualified for.  I am not to be held responsible for anything I have ever said, am saying, and/or will ever say.”

And yes, I’m back with a bad attitude.

EDIT

Found this little tidbit from Campbell Brown on CNN… I’m not alone.  Maybe Obama will learn to not piss off the press.

cnn EDIT AGAIN.. well.. it seems this video has been removed from CNN… If you do a search for the video “This is fun for the press”, you will still find a link.  However, the video never loads.  And obviously below, the video is now “missing”… how “interesting”… and I’m not being a “tin foil” person here, but I find incidents of the press speaking negatively about Obama disappearing pretty quickly after publication.

 

But no worries… I happen to have the transcript of the video.  :D  See below.

 

cnn2 BROWN: No one here needs to be reminded of how heated things got between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the campaign. She trashed him, saying he wasn't ready to be commander in chief. He trashed her, mocking her foreign policy experience as first lady. Well, now, of course, they have put all of that behind them, so that she can become his secretary of state. Naturally, given all that was said, this issue came up during an exchange with reporters today. This is worth listening to.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: You've talked about the importance just now of having different voices and robust debate within your administration. But, again, going back to the campaign, you were asked and talked about the qualifications of the -- your now, your nominee for secretary of state. And you belittled her travels around the word, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders. And your new White House council said that her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. I'm wondering whether you can talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring.

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think -- this is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign. No, I understand. And you're having fun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: There we go again. The pesky media, all we want to do is have a little fun, stir things up for our own amusement.

I mean, really, how silly of that reporter to dare ask you, Mr. President-elect, how it is that you completely mocked Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience just a few months ago and yet today you think there is no one more qualified than she to lead your foreign policy team? It's a clever device, treating a question so dismissively in an attempt to delegitimize it, but it is a legitimate question. As annoying how you may have found it, it is a fair question.

It was only in March of this year that Greg Craig, your new White House counsel, put out a memo over four pages long outlining point by point Hillary Clinton's foreign policy claims, calling them all exaggerated, just words, not supported by her record.

Now, look, maybe you regret what you said about Hillary Clinton. Maybe it was, as you suggested today, all just said in the heat of the campaign. If that is the case, and you are both now rising above it, then you deserve to be commended for that. And you could have been explicit in saying all of that today. You could have explained the evolution of your thinking, instead of belittling a question you didn't like.

Mr. President-elect, reporters, we hope, are going to ask you a lot of annoying questions over the next four years. Get used to it. That is the job of the media, to hold you accountable.

But this isn't just about the media. It's about the American people, many of whom voted for you because of what you said during the campaign. And they have a right to know which of those things you meant and which you didn't. Apparently, as you made clear today, you didn't mean what you said about Hillary Clinton.

So, what else didn't you mean? The media is going to be asking. And you were wrong today. Annoying questions are about more than just the press having fun. Annoying questions are about the press doing its job and the people's right to know.

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)