About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Should Obama Clarify Comments on Detroit Speech?

UPDATE: Please refer to the new follow-up post, in which we address the concerns that came up in the comments section.


****

Sen. Barack Obama may have to retract a claim he made at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Indianapolis on May 8.

In the 30-minute speech, Obama discussed the usual "challenges facing people across Indiana and all across this country are growing by the day," i.e. housing crisis, the economy and health care.

However, the key phrase to listen for is this (23:24):

"We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president."

Why is this the key phrase?

The speech that Obama refers to is from May 2007 when he spoke to the Detroit Economic Club. Despite what he said at the J-J Dinner and several other moments on the campaign trail, Obama was applauded by the audience when he proposed setting higher fuel efficiency standards.

The YouTube user, ObamaDetroit, splices together Obama's speech from Indianapolis and compares it to the speech he gave at the Detroit Economic Club.

ObamaDetroit joined YouTube one week ago and only has this video on the channel.


Obama's misstatement, caught on tape, is somewhat reminiscent of Sen. Hillary Clinton's story of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. Clinton had recounted the story of her 1996 trip to the Tuzla Airport several times along the campaign trail, saying: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Eventually, a video surfaced of Clinton strolling down the tarmac, giving a hug to a little girl and observing the military. Under pressure by the media and whistleblowers, Clinton admitted in an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News that she had indeed, misspoke.

Should Obama be put under similar pressure to clarify his statements? Let your thoughts be known in comments section.

-- Emily Freifeld

By washingtonpost.com |  May 15, 2008; 5:15 PM ET
Previous: New McCain Web Ad Predicts Rosy Future | Next: New Ads for Clinton in Kentucky and Oregon

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



You know Obama doesn't mean what he says or doesn't say what he means. Every bonehead statement he makes he is taken out of context. When is this bonehead going to be held accountable and not excused by the MSM. It's past time.

Posted by: Chief | May 15, 2008 6:12 PM

Emily, Emily. I think Obama first needs to repeat the statement for a couple of months like Hillary, make a few changes in his story like Hillary, then deny what the tape shows like Hillary, and then , say in October, say he was tired and mis-spoke. Just like old Hillary and the sniper fire.

Posted by: svbreeder | May 15, 2008 6:12 PM

Really...should he clarify? Should he clarify whether people clapped or not? Are you kidding me?

Come back to the real world and start covering the campaign...

Not.This.Time.

We will not be distracted.

Posted by: justmy2 | May 15, 2008 6:12 PM

Other people who heard senator Obama's 2007 speech to the Detroit Economic Club confirm that his remarks received a cool reception. Whether a few people clapped does not create a Tuzla-like scandal. But it's pretty clear that Ms. Freifeld is looking to manufacture one.

Posted by: Elon | May 15, 2008 6:15 PM

somebody clapped, obviously...I wonder though if there were other moments in the 30 minute speech where he did mention higher fuel standards without any reaction. That's not something the DEC crowd is usually happy to hear....

Posted by: ghost | May 15, 2008 6:18 PM

Oh Please! Senator Obama was roundly criticized from those in attendance,the Mayor of Detroit, and most MI op-Ed pages for taking on the auto industry that day.

Posted by: Dawn | May 15, 2008 6:22 PM

The Detroit Economic Club...?

Wheres the punchline...?

Posted by: Gobama | May 15, 2008 6:23 PM

Please make it stop, mommy! It hurts!

Oh, my god!! Please, Washington Post, stop Emily Freifeld before the national discourse devolves into a slap-fight!

What has happened to our nation? Just because we have the interweb at our fingertips doesn't mean we should blog about every possible angle. USA Today had a piece today about the hold music on each candidates headquarters telephones! How low are we going to get?????

Will someone please pull the plug on Ms. Freifeld before she makes a complete ass of herself and a mockery of the campaign for president. This is a very, very important election and puerile stories like these are an irrelevant distraction.

PS - I am not an Obama supporter. I just don't want to play anymore of these absurd games!

Posted by: Lisa Risdell | May 15, 2008 6:23 PM

way to go. more "Gotcha!" politics, distracting us from real issues. get a conscience.

Posted by: Paul | May 15, 2008 6:23 PM

There is a very serious double-standard at work here. The slightest, most trivial inconsistency uttered by a Democrat is immediately met with calls to "clarify" or suggestions that the Democrat is lying. But the Republican candidate can make statements that are demonstrably at odds with the facts and they are never called to account for it. I cite as Exhibit A the allegation by Arianna Huffington that John McCain told people at a dinner party that he didn't vote for George Bush. Three independent witnesses have confirmed that John McCain made the statement. McCain nevertheless denies it. Where are the calls for John McCain to account for his false statement? Why is John McCain's integrity not being called into question? Emily, I'd like to know, since you seem to be dedicated to sniffing out possible false statements uttered by the presidential candidates, did you write a similar column with regard to John McCain? If not, why not? Do you only care about inconsistent statements when they come from Democrats?

Posted by: CaLawyer | May 15, 2008 6:23 PM

Soon Obama isn't going to have any time for anything but his defense: he's about to be indicted in the Rezko scandal because he's a cheap little hood:

Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 7
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 10
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 32

Posted by: John Ryskamp | May 15, 2008 6:26 PM

Low week, Eh??
What is the issue in Obama's Detroit speech?
You don't care, isn't?
By the way, how many people did actually applaude; and how many have put in practice the deal that Obama was proposing??
You don't care, isn't?

Posted by: Mark Webb | May 15, 2008 6:27 PM

"Obama talks tough on Detroit
Criticism of auto industry could make winning support an uphill battle":

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080514/BUSINESS01/805140387/1014

"Obama's Tough Talk Backfires in Motown":

http://www.newsweek.com/id/34740

"Bill Ford, Jr. Miffed by Obama's Criticism of Auto Industry":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277013,00.html

Hmmm, doesn't sound like there was much "applause" as reported by reporters on the scene!

Posted by: Dawn | May 15, 2008 6:28 PM

Oh its okay in Missouri he attributed languages to Afghanistan that they don't even speak but of course he will be excused from making those errs. After all, Jesus ain't got nothing on the brother. Its either a bonehead mistake, he will apologize and the "idea" that is Obama will just have smooth sailing.
Democrats and the media are too inlove with him Obama is obviously a case of , " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," Well, I behold him to be the worse political mistake America has made thus far, yes even worse than George W. Bush.

Posted by: mona | May 15, 2008 6:29 PM

What a real disservice you are to the profession, Ms. Freifeld.

Facts evident from the video:
1. At Indiana, when he mentioned higher fuel efficiency standards, there was immediate clapping from the audience. Obama reacted spontaneously by saying that in Detroit, the audience was quiet at this moment.

2. The video of the audience clapping in Detroit was at the end of Obama's speech.

Subject to interpretation:
Did the Detroit audience clap in response to the fuel efficiency remarks, or were they clapping Obama's overall speech? The video can't distinguish.

There is substantial evidence that the Detroit automotive industry has fought tooth and nail any past and recent effort to raise CAFE standards. There is substantial evidence that they have banked on larger cars, SUVs, and hence they have opposed higher fuel efficiency standards. And in Bush/Cheney, they have found willing partners in this wrong headed direction.

In light of this, it is not improbable that the sentiment in Detroit, at least among the business leaders, is still not enthusiastically for higher CAFE standards. So is it so hard for you to understand that Obama's specific points about this issue might not have got the same degree of applause in Detroit as in Indianapolis?

It seems a blatant attempt on your part to manufacture a controversy when there is little justification for it. You should be ashamed!

Posted by: suvro | May 15, 2008 6:30 PM


You gotta be kidding,

you have a politician that is able to get applause from automakers while proposing them to change their entire production chain

and you want him to apologies ???!??!?!?
and you write an article about it ?????

+ it sounds like 20 people clapping

it s a joke right ?

Posted by: giab | May 15, 2008 6:31 PM

Apparently anything is a target. Emily's an idiot.

Posted by: Joe | May 15, 2008 6:33 PM


Great hatchet piece from Emily Freifeld.


Worthy of the National Enquiror not the WaPo...

Posted by: Vote Obama and save a soldiers life... | May 15, 2008 6:37 PM

Let's give Obama a pass on his inaccurate statement. After all, he is the media's darling and the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party - no matter that he is an inexperienced, unqualified, condescending neophyte with no record of accomplishment. Catching Obama in a lie is just another pesky ol' distraction that we don't need. What's a little white lie here and there? Let's all join together and applaud his charisma. After all, he is THE MAN and he wants to be president really, really bad.

Posted by: Debbie | May 15, 2008 6:39 PM

I think every Obama supporter should ask and answer this question:

Which version of the Rev Wright response do you believe?

1. I never was in the pews on 'those' days at the church. What controversial comments?

2. I was there and I was aware of the controversial comments, but I can no more disown Rev Wright than I could my white grandmother.

3. Rev Wright does not know me and I do not know him. I hereby denounce, divorce and annul my relationship with him, just not the church with the new pastor.

All within three weeks, in fact, which excuse do you believe, Week one, two or three.

And yeah, I know that legitimate criticism can be called racist.

Posted by: thelaw | May 15, 2008 6:42 PM

Would you rather debate Rev. Wright, or vote for Obama and save a soldiers life...

Posted by: Vote Obama and Save a Soliders Life... | May 15, 2008 6:46 PM

Do you get paid money to distract people from the issues?

Posted by: Arjuna9 | May 15, 2008 6:49 PM

didn't you get the Obama dictum

"No More Distractions"

in other words

"print what I want you to think"

Posted by: lucci8 | May 15, 2008 6:49 PM

No, WaPo. This time we will not be distracted by non-issues. You will not cause us to vote for another moron like Bush. Not this time. Better luck in 2012.

Posted by: Mike | May 15, 2008 6:52 PM

ms. Freifeld is a moron.

Posted by: miked | May 15, 2008 6:55 PM

Wow, what a silly story.

Posted by: Brendan | May 15, 2008 6:59 PM

............worthless distraction

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 6:59 PM

The new phenomenon of the Obama campaign seems to be that the voters simply no longer fall for every non-issue his opponents are coming up with. Even the mad preacher didn't work. It shows the frustration of the Clinton campaign that they had to resort to ridiculous items like the flag pin. Apparently the Clintons are scraping the bottom of their mud bucket.

Posted by: Bodo | May 15, 2008 7:03 PM

They clapped at the end of the speech. You are being fooled by the editing. Such a stupid non-story. Give me a break. Why don't you go out and ask John McCain why he claims to be an environmentalist when he has voted against every significant piece of environmental legislation before the Senate?

Posted by: Bubba | May 15, 2008 7:04 PM

OH MY GHOD you're kidding, right?

Clinton's REPEATED lying about running for cover in Bosnia, and INSISTING the press were hounding her unfairly, only to be outed as a LIAR is on par with... WHAT?

...Levels of applause?

Really, Emily. Your candidate is weak in every important measure or we would have voted her the nomination.

Posted by: JBE | May 15, 2008 7:04 PM

Obama's claim that he "stood up to the oil companies" by demanding more fuel efficient cars was featured in his ads here in California before the February primary. He also claimed in that ad that "the room fell silent" when he made this bold proposal. There is nothing new in this story except the media making a belated attempt to cover this smart, ambitious politician who devised a winning strategy with the help of a complicit press that hates the Clintons. I didn't know anything about the reality of his actual speech to the auto industry, but I recognized it as the BS that it is because I know that the auto industry has finally quit fighting higher fuel efficiency standards. The industry has figured out that they are doomed if they don't compete in that arena. When John Dingell quits fighting the CAFE standards, you know that the game is over. So....thanks for this non-news that is a day late and a dollar short. Now that you have saddled the Democrats w/ this candidate, you should just be quiet.

Posted by: Yellow Dog | May 15, 2008 7:05 PM

Saddle me up, & vote Obama and save a soldiers life...

Posted by: Vote Obama and save a soldiers life... | May 15, 2008 7:08 PM

What a piece of investigative journalism! Like already noticed by readers who seem to be more informed than you, in the end, you might end up beeing the one having to retract your paper

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:09 PM

Obama supporters and the media don't care about facts. They are too busy believing that corporate America is evil and enjoys our energy dependance.

Posted by: Bob | May 15, 2008 7:15 PM

Really, Emily. Your candidate is weak in every important measure or we would have voted her the nomination.

-------------------------

Yeah, the best candidate always gets the nomination right? That's why we got John Kerry in 04.

Posted by: lib | May 15, 2008 7:17 PM

Oh, I see. Now clap is the same as sniper fire. Pathetic little Hillary supporters are getting pretty desperate, aren't they!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:22 PM

Is Emily Freifeld a WP reporter or a Hillary collaborator? I've never seen such drivel before!

Munir

Posted by: Munir | May 15, 2008 7:30 PM

This story is complete idiocy. Everyone who follows the news, even casually, knows that Obama got a VERY cool reception from the Detroit audience for his straight talk and refusal to pander.

Posted by: David D'Andrea | May 15, 2008 7:32 PM

Emily,

Are you an intern at the Post? Was this your project for the week? You've got to be kidding me regarding whether people actually clapped or not. Why don't you also look into whether he said they were serving chicken or beef. That's another potential scoop for you.

Posted by: Steve | May 15, 2008 7:32 PM

does the washington post seriously pay you as a journalist?

Posted by: ike | May 15, 2008 7:33 PM

More manufactured tripe. Equating sniper fire with getting (or not getting) applause? Try covering the actual news. There really are many more important things going on in the world--some of them even affect your readers. If you want scandal, I'm sure American Idol is on at some point tonight.

Posted by: tellthetruth | May 15, 2008 7:33 PM

Emily, you are a poster child for what is wrong with our media. Never mind the fact that reporting at the time confirms Obama's remarks (which a real journalist would have found before writing a story and smearing someone), we have 2 disastrous wars going on that McCain promises to continue forever, we have an economic collapse coming that McCain proposes more of the same failed Bush policies to "fix", we are TORTURING PEOPLE, which used to bother McCain, but he's now just as depraved as the rest of the Republicans, our entire government has been gutted and replaced with conservative hacks hellbent on destroying the idea of good, functional government, and you want to talk about a few people clapping for an Obama speech. Disgusting.

Posted by: Jason Pellett | May 15, 2008 7:39 PM

"Should Obama be put under similar pressure to clarify his statements? Let your thoughts be known in comments section."

Emily sweetie, you seem to be unaware of the Rules of Engagement for this campaign. It is okay to play Gotcha politics with Hillary Clinton, but you can't with Obama.

What are you, a racist?

If you have any doubt, check with Eugene Robinson, Colbert King, Dana Milbank, EJ Dionne, .....

or with Chris Obama Matthews of Hardball, Keith Obama Olbermann of Countdown, Tim Obama Russert of Meet the Press, Dan Obama Abrams of The Verdict, Katrina Obama Vander Heuven of The Nation, .....

Posted by: Krishna | May 15, 2008 7:41 PM

I remember when Senator Obama spoke to the Detroit automakers. I recall the story on the evening news - or at least some televised newscast. I recall thinking "now that took some courage." The newsstory, in fact, at the time was talking about how "cool" his reception was - and he did tell them what he said he did. Probably they applauded out of politeness. I can't imagine there was wild joy at what he was saying. I do believe the "spirit" of what Senator Obama was saying remains valid. He did tell them what he said he did.

Posted by: Larry J | May 15, 2008 7:41 PM

If Democrats actually cared about the soldiers lives instead of just being there for the political wins. That line of argument would ring true.

The dirty little secret is that Iraq is simply the conduit to power. Then the real redistribution of wealth can begin.

What do you think will happen with the morons in Congress right now get veto proof majorities and a President that will be so beholden to them that he will never veto any stupid carbon tax legislation. Obama will be the Carter of the new Century. Green jobs will be a 1 for 4 trade. 4 real jobs for on 'green' job. You think things are expensive now, just wait until Obama is President

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:43 PM

What an inaccurate piece of nonsense. Does the Washington Post have any journalistic standards left? Is this what jouralism has come to? Troll YouTube and rush to write a gotcha piece? Please look into the facts first.

Posted by: SameOld SameOld | May 15, 2008 7:44 PM

Nice to know Hillary is still doing Oppo research.

Posted by: jimmy | May 15, 2008 7:47 PM

Hey, Obama Zombies, since you are all so college educated and smart and all, please refer back to Psych 101, lying to make yourself look better and other character flaws. It doesn't make any difference what the lie is. In fact, less significant lies beg these questions; "Why stretch the truth at all? Are you really that insecure about your accomplishments?"

Posted by: frodo2you | May 15, 2008 7:48 PM

The applause were more than sparse! Very few applauses in comparison to a normal speech. Are we trying to split hairs???
Sorry, it is not comparable to Hillary's speech! Hillary who?

Posted by: CommonSensePlease | May 15, 2008 7:49 PM

oh please! Don't you understand that by observing a potential and trivial problem that BHO has created for himself opens you to accusations of racism? Where is your brain, ms. reporter? God forbid you raise a serious issue....

Posted by: forces | May 15, 2008 7:57 PM

I definitely think that You Tube is rapidly replacing the media as a source of information.

If Hillary was held to a standard of having clear memories, then the same standard needs to be applied to Barrack. Why should he be allowed to overtly embellish his memories and not get shot down the same as Hillary?

This campaign has repeatedly highlighted the double standard applied to women in America. Racial slurs are ardently denounced, while sexual slurs are snickered at on the evening news. It is a sickening double standard - and this situation is no different.

From one former Democrat who will be supporting McCain with my vote in 2008.

Posted by: Mary | May 15, 2008 8:07 PM

How dishonest is to compare a blatant fictional story of something that never happened but in the delusional mind of a narcissist liar, designed to inflate her miserable resume comparing with a lack of acknowledge of clapping response to a real speech in a real situation. His perception that a few claps were not a standing ovation is not a lie. Where is the video of the standing ovation? A repeated LIE against a perception? Be real Emily.

Posted by: JORGE MORENO | May 15, 2008 8:07 PM

Gosh, it's amazing how many Washington Post readers just happened to be in Detroit that day!
The alternative is that there happen to be a lot of Obama trolls spewing out the spin given to them by their local campaign manager.
Since you are all so college educated and smart and all, please refer back to Stat 101 regarding most likely scenarios.

Posted by: frodo2you | May 15, 2008 8:08 PM

Wow, digging deep for that, eh?

Yes, it's exactly the same as saying that you were being shot at.

Are you done trying to manufacture stories to keep this on life-support?

Posted by: ep thorn | May 15, 2008 8:09 PM

Chances that people are spamming the boards: less than 10% (this isn't a Ron Paul story)

Chance that people realize what a non-story this is (as is bringing up the sniper thing now): 90+%.

It shouldn't take a college degree to figure that one out, but I guess I'm too elitist with all ma book-learnin' to be American! Of course, at least I can locate Iraq on a map without having to invade it first...

Posted by: ep thorn | May 15, 2008 8:13 PM

Obama is not qualified to be president of the 57 states. He is unelectable and I don't trust him. It is not over vote smart, vote Clinton.

Posted by: Tobias | May 15, 2008 8:16 PM

Well, the Repubs may want to use this in the fall, since they have little substance of their own to run on, but is the amount of applause related to the bullets overhead in Bosnia?

And now the memory and truth test goes beyond the content of a sermon in church (yawn!), or a specific conversation a year ago, when Obama speaks to multiple audiences daily, to recall a particular audiences reaction to a comment?

While it's good to hold the bar high, this is not even close to sniper fire.

I hope there's some real news to report soon, but I wonder how much research did it take to reach this "a ha" moment and revelation?

Posted by: DonJulio | May 15, 2008 8:18 PM

Obama is not qualified to be president of the 57 states. He is unelectable and I don't trust him. It is not over vote smart, vote Clinton.

Posted by: Tobias | May 15, 2008 8:19 PM

Clinton supporter here, there is absolutely no story here. Gimme back my minute.

Posted by: Steve | May 15, 2008 8:21 PM

Wow, Emily. You can't even do a simple story on a gaffe by Senator Obama without turning into a hit piece on Senator Clinton. How unbelievably gratuitous. Have you named your first son Barack yet?

Posted by: Politicus Finch | May 15, 2008 8:24 PM

Thorn, that's really scientific the way you pulled those numbers right out of the air. You must be a behavioral scientist. And your assumptions about my thoughts on the war in Iraq are about as far off as your numbers.
We could fence degrees but that does not appeal to me tonight.
It is common knowledge that the Obama campaign sends the orcs out to counter every piece of bad press. They are really good at it. It's almost scary how well they have protected their man from his own faults. We'll see how well this works when the shields come down.

Posted by: frodo2you | May 15, 2008 8:26 PM

If Obama misspeaks to make himself look courageous, it's a distraction or it's silly. Now, if Clinton misspeaks to make herself look courageous it's a major character flaw that completely disqualifies her from the presidency and fits a pattern of lies, deception and general pathological monster-like baby-eating behavior! And of course Frank Rich will have to dedicate his column to it as well. Oh yeah and did I mention how racist she is!

Posted by: Joe | May 15, 2008 8:27 PM

Are you kidding me!!! I think GUNFIRE being shot over my head is a FAR more reach than ignoring some people who may or may not have been clapping. You actually paid a reporter to print this trash???

This country is in a world of hurt, and it is going to take SIGNIFICANT CHANGE to fix it, thank goodness OBAMA decided to run, can you imagine the last 24 year BUSH1,CLINTON,BUSH2, Clinton2 thank god it didn't happen.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Posted by: Dennis | May 15, 2008 8:29 PM

LOL. a bit of a stretch remembering the applause in crowd versus being SHOT at By SNIPER FIRE.

Posted by: dawd | May 15, 2008 8:39 PM


I would take it to mean that the task of the next President is to do the right thing in spite of the vested interests of corrupt corporatism.

Of course he was greeted with silence.
He was, in effect, telling them that they needed to get their act together.
Nobody likes to be told that, but it's vitally necessary for our country's survival.

The cancer in our nation won't go away without surgery.

Posted by: wardropper | May 15, 2008 8:40 PM

When I read the denials by the senator's worshippers as to the importance of this Misstatement I'm reminded of the zealotry they so disliked in the Republicans. Zealotry is zealotry whether it is that of evangelical Christian following the Republicans and denying science, abortion, or gay rights or if it the denial by a supporter of the senator that he "misspeaks".
The "truth" is always out there and if you open your ears you will learn.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 8:46 PM

Obama makes a gaffe, lies about an incident of one year ago regarding the room being silent when in actuality it wasn't and he did receive applause as shown by the You Tube video and it is ok to all of his supporters, that to bring it up is a distraction, that people are racist for talking about it, it is a non-issue.

But Hillary mis-recalls an incident from 12 years ago and it is Armaggedon, according to Obama supporters is on the verge we all need to discuss it 24 hours a day for a month. Hillary's Bosnia trip was 12 years ago and she had three different landings that day, Sinbad and Cheryl Crow were not with her on all of them. It seems she got them confused, because as the news said on that day of March 25, 1996, there were reports of snipers in the hills and she was surrounded by Marines with weapons when she flew off the secure base and landed on the front line areas to visit fortified posts. I know you don't want to hear that so you will continue to repeat the lie that seems to give Obama more traction. The articles are below.

Obama met his sister from Africa some years back, a memorable time if he was excited to meet her as he wants us to believe. he writes in his book he met her at the airport, she says he is wrong that he met her at a greyhound bus station. Isn't it funny that he would put into words and not even remember where he met his sister for the first time?

Associated Press, March 25, 1996:

MARKOVICI, Bosnia-Herzegovina - PROTECTED BY SHARPSHOOTERS, Hillary
Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by BLACKHAWK HELICOPTER
Monday to deliver a personal "thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S.
troops.

"They're making a difference," the first lady said of the 18,500
Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton became the
first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an
extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others
have visited hot spots. . . .

But the highlight of her trip were visits to TWO FORTIFIED POSTS OUTSIDE
THE U.S. BASE IN TUZLA. Even President Clinton, restricted to the base
by bad weather in January, did not see as much of this war-wracked
region as Mrs. Clinton did Monday.

The troops seemed to appreciate it: cameras chirped like a thousand
crickets as she chatted with mine-disposal experts, examined huge tanks
and met a hero or two. Chelsea, 16, kept her usual low profile but
remained constantly at her mother's side, posing for soldiers or talking
softly with them.

Watching the first lady troop around in muted trench coat and pants,
Sgt. Michael Tucker of Miami said, "She's a very important person. For
her to take time to come and see us means a lot."

And in another account:

Another contemporaneous account:

At a second outpost, Camp Bedrock, Mrs. Clinton visited a M.A.S.H.
unit, the only full-service U.S. Army hospital in Bosnia. The three-hour
tour of the FRONTLINES of the international peacekeeping mission were
filled with the gritty reality of a military operation, a far cry from
traditional first lady photo opportunities, and Mrs. Clinton seemed more
than comfortable with that. CNN, 3/25/96

Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a
military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal
"thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
...
RIFLEMEN RUSHED TO THE BRUSH LINE as the helicopter landed AND
SURROUNDED HER AS SHE walked into the post. Located in a "separation
zone," the U.S. outpost nestles between two tree lines. Just months ago,
one was Serbian territory, the other Bosnian.

Security was tight - fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to
Tuzla - but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks on
the trip.
Lexis - By Ron Fournier,, Associated Press, March 25, 1996

The reason the supporters of Obama remind us of Bush supporters is because you like to dismiss the truth when it is in your face and you think that your candidate should be able to live with a double standard. Obama is bad for America.

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 8:46 PM

Too bad he owns a gas guzzling Detroit Chrysler 300 that gets 17 city and 25 on the highway! Oh my god, the room fell silent.

Posted by: Jack | May 15, 2008 8:48 PM

This is a joke, right?

Posted by: PLewisBethesda | May 15, 2008 8:49 PM

He does own the car. But I forgot Obama supporters have no sense of humor.

Posted by: Jack | May 15, 2008 8:52 PM

An empty suit. A bitter hero in his own mind.

Posted by: Geraldine | May 15, 2008 8:52 PM

I guess Emily is another upset Clinton supporter, just like Emily's list.

Posted by: jkev | May 15, 2008 8:52 PM

Hmmm, looks like some serious content-starvation is occurring in media land.

Posted by: Portnoy | May 15, 2008 8:53 PM

This is possible the stupidest thing I've ever read in the Post. You have a responsibility to be better than this.

Posted by: JG | May 15, 2008 8:55 PM

The Obama supporters are hard at work. Of course, the comments don't matter. Remember Obama transcends politics, humanity, the Earth, Washington D.C., etc. He doesn't answer to the same things Hillary answers to because she posed as a human, Obama poses as God.

Posted by: Lynn E | May 15, 2008 8:56 PM

You think this is stupid try listening to Obama supporters go on for a month about Bosnia. I guess that wasn't a "distraction" but solid journalism. Hahahahahah!

Posted by: Frank | May 15, 2008 8:57 PM

I cannot tell a lie; my supporters won't let me.

Posted by: frodo2you | May 15, 2008 8:58 PM

Poses as god, he is god! More of a beam of light than an actual human.

Posted by: Frank | May 15, 2008 8:59 PM

For all of the "democrats" threatening to vote for McCain: you really need to take a breath. Think about what you'd be voting for. Neither of the Dems is perfect, but McCain is really a horrible choice. If you can justify voting for an anti-abortion war monger then get the hell out of the party.

Posted by: JG | May 15, 2008 8:59 PM

Applause-gate. Hilarious.

(But please stop this nonsense).

Posted by: Jess65 | May 15, 2008 9:01 PM

Emily - - What are you talking about?

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 15, 2008 9:01 PM

And this poll says it all. You won't believe these results!

http://www.votenic.com

Posted by: votenicks | May 15, 2008 9:02 PM

I have no idea who Emily Freifeld is, i have no axe to grind, and i have never in my life replied with comments to this or any other website. But this is without a doubt the worst article I have ever read. The reasoning is specious and the analogy to Clinton sniper fire make believe story is extremely tenuous.

Although i agree with the above 'there is absolutely no story here, give me back my minute' i'd add that it is quite irresponsible to publish trash like this on an award winning newspaper's website. It gives me a very negative view of the author and of the Washington Post. Take some responsibility for your journalism.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:02 PM

I'm a 60 year old woman Hillary supporter who will be voting for McCain. What do I care about abortion? These young woman Obama supporters didn't support the first woman to have a shot at the presidency, deserve what they get.

Posted by: Joan | May 15, 2008 9:03 PM

Interpretation of applause is way different from dodging gunfire. Is Emily Freifeld a Post employee or a paid shill for that disgusting fraud Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: RealChoices | May 15, 2008 9:06 PM

Who has never misspoken or had a faulty memory, or padded the truth to illustrate a point. Stop harping on this petty crap and cover real issues.

Posted by: Whaaaaaaaaaaaa? | May 15, 2008 9:12 PM

This was news worthy?

HaHaHa I never thought I'd see the day WaPo was trying to act like Fox News. Are they hiring their rejects.

They clapped? They didn't clap? And these are the people who vote?

Posted by: Terry | May 15, 2008 9:12 PM

So it looks like the Obama supporters are suddenly forgiving of "misspeaking". How convenient.

Posted by: Jack | May 15, 2008 9:13 PM

An article on misogyny and misspeaking all in one day. It looks like Hillary's nuts are cracking.

Posted by: Hillareeznuts | May 15, 2008 9:21 PM

TO all Barack Supporters - male or female , To all folks who called HRC a liar -

I challenge you all to read through this article -

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

I dare you to read the article and claim that OBAMA is still as truthful as he is made out to be

Posted by: Ash | May 15, 2008 9:22 PM

Emily, I'm sorry, you did ask a question didn't you. Forgive my rudeness, now to answer your question - - Hellll no!!!

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 15, 2008 9:26 PM

PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE STUPID

Posted by: Wotta Waste | May 15, 2008 9:30 PM

i cant beleive i am reading the washington post
more games, even here.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:30 PM

Sincerely doubt any presidential finalist ever will have drawn the scrutiny and scolding directed at Barack Obama. Today also brought forth a video in which he's caught calling someone "Sweetie." (He apologized.) If such things count as experience, Obama no longer qualifies as inexperienced.

Posted by: FirstMouse | May 15, 2008 9:31 PM

Joan====while Right to Life in Indiana took out $1.3 million of anti- Obama advertisement against Obama for his pro-choice stance, they never said one word about Hillary. It seems that Obama was doing the heavy lifting while Hillary was sitting back smirking and getting comfortable with the people that broke in the window on Obama's headquarters. Nice! The Democratic Party works 45 years for equal opportunity and the Hillary supporters are going to take their marbles and go home. Remember that if he loses and she tries to make a comeback in 4 years, paybacks are hell.

Posted by: oldman&theC | May 15, 2008 9:31 PM

Wow Emily. Make sure you marry well or if you are married, make sure your husband has a good job.

If this article is any indication, then you sure are not going to make it as a reporter and you do have to eat and pay the rent. Now I see what is wrong with the Washington Post.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:32 PM

Let's see: what is easy to forgot vs. hard to forget?

a) Being fired upon by snipers: Hard to forget

b) Being applauded or not: Easy to forget

c) What does this do with the American soldiers who were killed in Iraq this week: apparently easy to forget.


Could we go back to debating flag pins? By contrast to applause-gate, THAT was a really big issue.

Posted by: egc52556 | May 15, 2008 9:33 PM

Joan, sweetheart, there does not seem to be any evidence that Hillary is/was the first woman to have a shot at the presidency. Your hypothesis does not have any shred of evidence that would lead anyone to believe that statement. And for the record I would love to have to see a woman with a creditable opportunity to become the first woman president - - just not this woman. There are some women that I would be proud to vote for in this capacity. The first to come to mind is Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas - - now that "girl" is sharp, just an awesome prospect. There are several others also, so please stop trying to be on a guilt complex and insult the intelligence of the women of America for having the courage to stand up and disavow somewhere that would not represent our gender with honor and dignity.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 15, 2008 9:35 PM

The issue is not Sen. Obama and his supporters or Sen. HRC or her supporters. The issue is John McCain! Now the war will be WON by the time he leaves office, 2013.

GWB drives a wedge in Israel today to help McCain who agreed today with GWB and your worried about a clap? Maybe piecing 1 second of either candidates speeches into a 3 second speeches would leave everyone speechless.

The issue is jobs, healthcare, self sustainable energy, out of Iraq, talking to our enemies, just like the previous Secretary of State Colin Powell or Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has stated in public and recorded on TV talk shows.

Posted by: jerry rubin | May 15, 2008 9:41 PM

I've head Obama repeat this story several times, so you'd think he'd be pretty sure about the facts. But since he's just another politician, I doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: Wolfcastle | May 15, 2008 9:43 PM

Only male reporters are allowed to post these questions, sweetie.

Posted by: Keith | May 15, 2008 9:44 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: omyobama | May 15, 2008 9:46 PM

He was joking.

He wasn't saying he was under sniper fire, he just meant it was a tough audience. Which it most likely was - people in Detroit expressed a lot of ambivalence on this stuff.

If you think focusing on this stuff is the media's obligation to the public during an election than you need to find another job.

Posted by: David | May 15, 2008 9:49 PM

Ms Freifeld

Clearly, Obama did not claim he put his life in danger in the course of his duties as a Senator.

But Clinton did.

Frankly, this borders on the ridiculous. You'll have to do better if you want to succeed as a blogger, or columnist, or whatever you are trying to be...

Posted by: cestfini | May 15, 2008 9:50 PM

Of course Obama's comments should not be scrutinized. Whatever he says is truth, and we all defer to his transcendent, ineffable wisdom. He is, after all, the Chosen One.

Posted by: carol anne | May 15, 2008 9:51 PM

Senator Obama, as we all know but some refuse to admit, will say ANYTHING to get a vote or a superdelegate. He is one of the most unethical people who has been a candidate for president in my lifetime. He will lie at the drop of a hat. But his loyal supporters and the press brush these things off as insignificant because there's absolutely no way that Obama could explain away his lies. And they really don't care about that...he's a young black man who can speak words that were written for him in an eloquent manner. He gets into trouble when he adds his own words. David Axelrod knows how to write the words, Obama knows how to speak them. Without Axelrod, he is just someone who lies to make a point. And he does it routinely.

Posted by: hazwalnut | May 15, 2008 9:55 PM

The applause in Detroit at mention of higher fuel-efficiency standards sounds fairly tepid even on this recording. From the vantage point of the camera we cannot discern the level of enthusiasm, if any, in the room.

There is a detectable cut between the two Detroit takes. These are clips separated in time but made to look contiguous. Check it out. Sniff the rat. The not so thunderous "standing ovation" is therefore for the speech as a whole, not the fuel standards in question. Once again, the vantage point leaves much to the imagination. Are some of these people simply getting up to leave? Are any auto execs leaping to their feet, bashing their palms together? Show me.

The leading nature of the editing makes clear that the video was created for partisan purposes. It views like a political ad. That may be OK for a YouTube video, but The Washington Post has higher standards to meet.

Can the Post reporter vouch for the authenticity of the audio? What other edits or enhancements for effect might be going on here?

Equating what seems at worst a rhetorical exaggeration on Obama's part, one that accurately captures the attitude of America's automakers, with the outright falsity of Clinton's Bosnia account is an incredible stretch. A Great Moment in Journalism this is not. Rather, what we have here is a typical swift boating event whereby mainstream journalists are manipulated into gratuitous amplification of political mischief. Or so it appears to this observer.

Posted by: Rand | May 15, 2008 9:56 PM

Emily, you need to run more authoritative video than some anonymous YouTube poster. Not long ago, someone ran a video that had Clinton supporter Kantor denigrating Hoosiers, four days before the primary. It got a lot of traction for a few hours. The audio, shall we say, was not the original version. I'm not saying THIS version is trumped up, I'm just saying get your video from reliable sources.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:04 PM

For all of the "democrats" threatening to vote for McCain: you really need to take a breath. Think about what you'd be voting for. Neither of the Dems is perfect, but McCain is really a horrible choice. If you can justify voting for an anti-abortion war monger then get the hell out of the party.

Posted by: JG | May 15, 2008 8:59 PM
------------------------
All I have heard since Obama got in the race that everyone else is old, uneducated and racists why should I any longer care about being pro-choice. Maybe some of you youth, the girls gone wild crowd, who have no respect for themselves or others maybe should lose some rights that so many of us fought for for so many years and let you obtain them yourselves.

I am not voting for Obama if he is the nominee, I will vote McCain. I will vote straight Democratic on the legislators but not for him.

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 10:05 PM

Emily, you just don't get it, do you? Probably spending too much time at the fancy dinners the Washington press corps gives where they laugh at the issues that mean so much to the lives of the rest of us poor slobs. Forget it, Emily. We're not going to let you and your "gotcha" Beltway press pals steal another election from us. Barack Obama is our next President! We can do it!!!

Posted by: Richard | May 15, 2008 10:06 PM

yeah, clapping, sniper fire, what's the difference.

are you kidding? someone put a lot of time writing this ridiculous post. unbelievable.

Posted by: jrcjr | May 15, 2008 10:11 PM

I once gave a speech in which I thought no one was laughing. It turned out I killed. People were talkinga bout it for weeks, but I had tunnel vision.

Also... the reaction of a crowd, as Dean's scream showed, is pretty hard to capture on video. I've taped plays where you can't hear the actors, but the crowd reaction is huge... or sound like they're shuffling because the mics in the audience. If you're taking it in directly from a mic on stage, you might not hear how loud the crowd actually is.

In any case, it's a huge jump to claim this was intentional fabrication on Obama's part. The fact is, he spoke truth to a group he though would not react well. They fact that they might have applauded does not necessarily mean Obama is lying here because the lie doesn't really improve the story. It's just as impressive if he took the risk and was well received.

What is not disputed, though, is that Obama told an audience what it needed to hear, not what it wanted to hear.

Posted by: Memekiller | May 15, 2008 10:14 PM

Is this post a parody or is this really the Washington Post? I'm seriously asking.

Posted by: Vito | May 15, 2008 10:14 PM

Crap

Posted by: mike in Spring Valley | May 15, 2008 10:15 PM

Emily, your trying to equate a speech in which the speaker asserts they were fired at by snipers with a speech where the speaker claimed to have received no applause when they actually did, is not only idiotic but absurd. You obviously nothing better to do with your time than waste your readers' time with this drivel.

Posted by: str8talk | May 15, 2008 10:15 PM

Emily Freifeld = dumb as a bang of rocks "reporting" about politics and the election.

Posted by: Focus on real issues | May 15, 2008 10:16 PM

Should the Washington Post have to clarify whether they pay Emily Freifield to write such ridiculous dreck?

Make it stop. None of us want to see this junk. People can't afford medicine and eggs and their mortgages and gas for their cars to take them to work. Emily Freifield, no more writing for you.

Posted by: SB | May 15, 2008 10:17 PM

My thoughts? This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. You are to be congratulated for setting a new precedent in box-of-rocks stupid.

Posted by: urizon | May 15, 2008 10:18 PM

So this is what we are reduced to? This is the best we can do? Applause. Tragic.

Posted by: mandrake | May 15, 2008 10:19 PM

John Ryskamp

You're either an ignorant moron, or a lying moron. I'll let you choose.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:19 PM

Obama got a very few claps when he mentioned that cars don't have to be made in Japan. Nobody clapped at all when he said we had to change Detroit's thinking. Nobody clapped when he said we have to raise fuel efficiency.

His story is actually completely true.

BP

Posted by: billpaustin | May 15, 2008 10:20 PM

A lie is a lie is a lie, he said no one clapped but the evidence shows him to be a liar. What is so hard for you people to undertand?

Thanks for making this an issue, Emily, Obama's faults need to be pointed out. His bullying supporters just don't like you to do it because it shows him to be just what he is, a lying politician.

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 10:21 PM

The next time you see that bratty unpopular high school girl who takes small comments she overhears in the hall and starts a gossip campaign for no other reason than to feel important about herself....tell her that the Washington Post is hiring and is looking for someone just like her for their political blog. This is worse than tripe, and I'm sure the Post's quarterly numbers reflect it.

Posted by: Matt | May 15, 2008 10:21 PM

Generally, I don't remember which particular lines people clapped for when I give a speech. I DO remember every time that I've been shot at, though.

Posted by: Vito | May 15, 2008 10:24 PM

If Joshua Hussein Marshall thinks this story is stupid, then it's not.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:24 PM

Sweet Jesus, are you f-ing kidding me?

We have real issues to deal with in this race. If only we had some real journalists to cover them. You people are pathetic.

Posted by: TR | May 15, 2008 10:24 PM

I think you should take the expression "nobody clapped" to mean a tepid reaction by the automakers, in other words, a euphemism. This, in no way, belies the point that he made that when calling for certain sacrifices to be made, Sen. Obama makes the call in front of the interested parties, the ones he calls to make the sacrifice. Emily, your piece and point look very amateurish. Almost to the point of water-carrying.

Posted by: allen goyne | May 15, 2008 10:25 PM

Hi Emily,
Did you lose your Mommy, honey? Do you want me to help you find her so she can take you home?

Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2008 10:25 PM

I agree with Josh Marshall. This is part of the media-incited stupidity we'd all be better served by ignoring. Who CARES if they clapped or not? It's not a character issue... it's a campaign anecdote... it might be massaged to make a point, but (really) who gives a damn about stuff like this... or Hillary saying she was under sniper fire... except, of course, Silly Emily and the Rest of the Media Mudheads... and the declining number of lemmings who follow their every word -- ignoring the reality of our country's growing troubles. It's criminal Emily even spent TIME on this drivel... we could have actually read about something (anything) important.

Posted by: Lee | May 15, 2008 10:26 PM


Channel 08? Is the number for the IQ of the reporter?

Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 10:26 PM

Emily:

You're entirely correct. However, Obama's misstatement is completely forgivable when compared with the lie you tell people when you introduce yourself as a journalist. My baby cousin who scribbles "daddy likes poo" on the wall with crayons has more of a claim to legitimate journalism than the useless and even damaging junk you are being seriously overpaid to copy and paste from Matt Drudge.

Posted by: Matt | May 15, 2008 10:27 PM

Who is ObamaDetroit? The video of Hillary in Bosnia was released by CBS. Come back when you have a reliable source and maybe it will be taken seriously.

Posted by: Paul | May 15, 2008 10:27 PM

I'm a Hillary backer, but I have to agree -- this is a moronic non-issue.

Posted by: Susan R. | May 15, 2008 10:28 PM

I'm an Obama fan who'll be happy to vote for Hillary if she can win the majority of delegates.

The people who say they'll vote for McCain instead of Obama aren't really Democrats...and that sort of underscores why Hillary might not be our choice to win the nomination.

BTW, this is 'expose' crap, like all of the media hatched 'gotcha' stories we've had to endure on our Democratic candidates. Meanwhile, McCain gets a pass on everything.

Posted by: Innocent Bystander | May 15, 2008 10:31 PM

The Newsweek article someone posted on the comments section makes it pretty clear it WAS a cool reception in Detroit. The thing with YouTube is video can be sliced and diced - just because it's on YouTube doesn't make it true.

Even if the YouTube thing panned out, it's so PETTY. Politicians fudge. They all do it to some extent. The media's role is to call them out on it when a certain line is crossed, when the fudging becomes a violation of the public trust.

It will be a sad day if this election is dictated by YouTube, a website filled with dancing-kitten videos.

Posted by: mike | May 15, 2008 10:33 PM

Given stories like this, is it any wonder why the traditional media are dying?

Posted by: Danton | May 15, 2008 10:34 PM

Congratulations! This piece is so stupid you got a shout out from Josh Marshall.

Posted by: Matt in Costa Rica | May 15, 2008 10:34 PM

Don't you think it would be more important to consider whether what he says about the American automobile industry is correct? Whether people clapped or not is a very trivial point to write a column about.

Posted by: Sempringham | May 15, 2008 10:34 PM

The media never stops spinning our heads. I remember vividly when Obama made that speech, all newspapers said it met cold reception. So if Obama needs to retract, the media needs to apologize for lying to us too.

Posted by: kemi | May 15, 2008 10:35 PM

Talk abou hypocrisy. Suddenly Obama is wearing the US Flag pin on his lapel." a man of conviction" Ha Ha. and not just once at a Veteran affairs gathering

Posted by: Dino Gius | May 15, 2008 10:37 PM

Great idea! Similarly, John McCain claimed that one of Chelsea Clinton's parents was Janet Reno!

He really claimed that, honestly, in June 1998. http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070007

He should be forced to present evidence as to why he believes that Janet Reno is Chelsea Clinton's parent!

Posted by: Alfred | May 15, 2008 10:38 PM

The general consensus seems to be that lying about applause is okay.

Welcome to Obama Land!!

Posted by: Meat Sweats | May 15, 2008 10:39 PM

This is a ridiculous comparison. When someone's life is threatened, they don't forget it. Hillary has never been under sniper fire in her life. What she reported was not a "misspeak" but rather a premeditated lie designed to make her look good. It was repeated at least four times. We're not talking about confusion or exaggeration here as is the case with Obama's example. We're talking about premeditated lying.

Posted by: trekbikie | May 15, 2008 10:40 PM

Dear Emily,
I hope your internship is ending this month and you'll go back to your junior high school and finish your education so you can finish growing up before you pursue actual journalism.

By the way, does your mommy know where you are?

Posted by: Bill Randle | May 15, 2008 10:41 PM

The issue here what is the definition of "applause"?

The concept of "applause" is quite nuanced and also depends on your definition of what "is" is.

Bottom line, Obama is a liar . . Get over it.

Posted by: Mitch | May 15, 2008 10:41 PM

Poor Emily can't even get the city in Bosnia correct. It's Tuzla, not Tulza. Looks like your emulous stab at journalistic mortality has fallen a tad short of Woodward & Bernstein territory.

Posted by: Pinson | May 15, 2008 10:42 PM

I can't believe the way all you WaPo bloggers are treating poor Emily. She's just trying to make a name for herself in politics, or journalism, or entertainment, or porn, or one of those highfalutin fields, and you meanies are standing in her way!

I'm taking all of youse guys off my Christmas list right now!!

Meanies!! I hate all of you!!!!

Posted by: Fitz | May 15, 2008 10:44 PM

I think this post is a joke. Really. It's snark, right?

Posted by: jweb271 | May 15, 2008 10:45 PM

Is this person a journalist, or a candidate's hack? Journalistic ethics and professionalism should require that those reporting have some understanding of the Public Good when following a story. This reporter evidently did little, if any, verification to back up her "story." And besides that failing, how is this sort of "story" relevent at all? To show that the media is light on Obama? Give me a break. With all these daggers out for Obama, its obvious that he's the one with the most potential to shake things up. That's the first step if we are to revive the Republic.

Posted by: silva66@suddenlink.net | May 15, 2008 10:47 PM

My Dearest Emily Freifeld,
My mama always told me to find a good looking but very dumb woman to marry, and I'm wondering if you could publish a photo of yourself so I could figure out if you could be right for me.

I have a feeling my mama's gonna like you real good...

Posted by: Bobby D. | May 15, 2008 10:47 PM

This is shamefully stupid.

Posted by: Jotham Stavely | May 15, 2008 10:47 PM

Are you a "friend" of David Vitter's? I mean, what else could you be doing in Washington?

Posted by: cord522@msn.com | May 15, 2008 10:48 PM

I am embarrassed for the Washington Post right now. This is beyond low.

Posted by: Jeremy | May 15, 2008 10:51 PM

You ain't no journalist Ms. Freifeld. Find a moral. Get an ethic.

Posted by: Merle | May 15, 2008 10:54 PM

Misstatement? His point was that Detroit was unhappy with his proposal, which it clearly was from all media reports. The applause was tepid, and came at the end of the speech. This is not an issue.

Posted by: Jim | May 15, 2008 10:54 PM

Oh my God. I thought the media had hit its nadir of inanity with their unmedicated obsession with the Wright soundbites. This one takes them lower. Congratulations, Post.

Obama has given how many hundreds of speeches over the past year? And he remembers the applause level wrong on one of them. Uh-oh! Time to lynch him again.

Yep, that's our crack media. The same one that was all OVER the Iraq WMD hoax, like... well like sleeping lapdogs on a... sunny afternoon.

Posted by: Mark | May 15, 2008 10:55 PM

This is pathetic. Is this what the supposed "party of ideas" is about now? It's pathetic.

Posted by: George Colombo | May 15, 2008 10:56 PM

"he's a young black man who can speak words that were written for him in an eloquent manner."

You forgot that he loves fried chicken, hazwalnut. Do you think he didn't write his 2004 Convention Speech-- you know, the one he delivered before hiring Axelrod? Do you think Obama didn't write his two books? Or is it just that young black men by definition can't do so?

Anyway, Bush is a middle-aged white man who can't even speak the words given him, and certainly hasn't written any of them. But I'm sure you love him and his original thinking.

Here, hazwingnut, read and learn from Cass Sunstein.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story

Posted by: Warshow | May 15, 2008 10:57 PM

As you said Emily, the video was SPLICED!! The keyword here is SPLICED. If one was SPLICED who is to say the other was not also SPLICED. Senator Clinton LIED (no getting around it) about the flying bullets incident, on several occasions. Please try to do some real reporting and quit trying to distract his supporters (and those who are on the fence) by trying to dig up dirt on Senator Obama. Taking cheap shots is not reporting.

Posted by: Ohreallynow | May 15, 2008 10:58 PM

"rarely is the queston asked, "is our journalists learning?"

Posted by: nice jounalism there | May 15, 2008 10:58 PM

No, he does not need to clarify. What needs clarification is why the Washington Post is giving a platform to a punk kid like Emily Friefeld who hasn't even graduated from college yet (American '08)to spread these idiotic innuendos. Google her, people: she's just some kid given the opportunity to "blog" because the old men at the Post haven't figured out new technology.

There's no story here. Just some brat with a keyboard and too much latitude from her bosses.

Posted by: Bob | May 15, 2008 10:59 PM

Hillary's Bosnia trip was 12 years ago and she had three different landings that day, Sinbad and Cheryl Crow were not with her on all of them. It seems she got them confused, because as the news said on that day of March 25, 1996, there were reports of snipers in the hills and she was surrounded by Marines with weapons when she flew off the secure base and landed on the front line areas to visit fortified posts. I know you don't want to hear that so you will continue to repeat the lie that seems to give Obama more traction. The articles are below.

BTW, Obama met his sister from Africa some years back, a memorable time if he was excited to meet her as he wants us to believe. he writes in his book he met her at the airport, she says he is wrong that he met her at a greyhound bus station. Isn't it funny that he would put into words and not even remember where he met his sister for the first time?

Associated Press, March 25, 1996:

MARKOVICI, Bosnia-Herzegovina - PROTECTED BY SHARPSHOOTERS, Hillary
Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by BLACKHAWK HELICOPTER
Monday to deliver a personal "thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S.
troops.

"They're making a difference," the first lady said of the 18,500
Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton became the
first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an
extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others
have visited hot spots. . . .

But the highlight of her trip were visits to TWO FORTIFIED POSTS OUTSIDE
THE U.S. BASE IN TUZLA. Even President Clinton, restricted to the base
by bad weather in January, did not see as much of this war-wracked
region as Mrs. Clinton did Monday.

The troops seemed to appreciate it: cameras chirped like a thousand
crickets as she chatted with mine-disposal experts, examined huge tanks
and met a hero or two. Chelsea, 16, kept her usual low profile but
remained constantly at her mother's side, posing for soldiers or talking
softly with them.

Watching the first lady troop around in muted trench coat and pants,
Sgt. Michael Tucker of Miami said, "She's a very important person. For
her to take time to come and see us means a lot."

And in another account:

Another contemporaneous account:

At a second outpost, Camp Bedrock, Mrs. Clinton visited a M.A.S.H.
unit, the only full-service U.S. Army hospital in Bosnia. The three-hour
tour of the FRONTLINES of the international peacekeeping mission were
filled with the gritty reality of a military operation, a far cry from
traditional first lady photo opportunities, and Mrs. Clinton seemed more
than comfortable with that. CNN, 3/25/96

Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a
military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal
"thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
...
RIFLEMEN RUSHED TO THE BRUSH LINE as the helicopter landed AND
SURROUNDED HER AS SHE walked into the post. Located in a "separation
zone," the U.S. outpost nestles between two tree lines. Just months ago,
one was Serbian territory, the other Bosnian.

Security was tight - fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to
Tuzla - but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks on
the trip.
Lexis - By Ron Fournier,, Associated Press, March 25, 1996

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 11:00 PM

That applause sounded pretty tepid to me. What a silly post.

Posted by: Josh E. | May 15, 2008 11:01 PM

If the editors and publisher of the Washington Post (and other mainstream papers) wonder why they're losing readership to independent blogs and other alternative sources of information, they need not look any further than this article. As indicated by previous comments here, it's trivial, it's poorly researched and it throws the supposed "quality control" advantage of edited, mainstream media out the door.

Posted by: Steve | May 15, 2008 11:01 PM

You dare to suggest that Barack Obama is required to tell the truth? You are indeed a silly woman, well deserving of the scorn these commenters are heaping upon you. We'll have no single standards here, young lady! Go back to picking apart any and all Hillary speeches, like a good girl, and find us something else that can be used against her.

Posted by: jeff | May 15, 2008 11:01 PM

Tepid applause or not, he said there was none. He is a liar.

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 11:02 PM

Such sad dying gasps from Clintonistas. The dream is slipping away, and they won't be happy until everyone around is damaged to their fullest.

Posted by: Richterscale | May 15, 2008 11:04 PM

Obama supporters like Blogs that are for Obama and hate any other news because they like to keep their heads in the sand and not listen to reality or truth. If you are against their messiah, then you must be bad. They really want to idolize another human in such a manner, and think the rest of us are going to drink their kook-aid, they are crazy.

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 11:04 PM

Is the reporter trying to say that actually the Detroit Economic Club is in FAVOR of higher fuel efficiency standards? I think we need some evidence of that other than polite applause during a guest's speech? If the automakers have come around to Obama's position, and that Obama is manufacturing a non-existent conflict, then that would be a big story. Please follow-up.

Posted by: Vito | May 15, 2008 11:05 PM

Wow. This is such a scandal! Let's run it 24/7 on Fox News. But I do wonder....how many times has Channel 08 had such an extensive coverage of any of the numerous misstatements made by John McCain? Or have I just missed them? For starters....how about asking John McCAin if the 3 different times and places when he claimed AQI (Sunnis) were being trained in Iran was what he actually believed at the time or was he deliberately misleading his audience? Either way, it doesn't look good for his so-called strongest asset. And no one in the MSM has ever, to my knowledge, asked him that question. Guess the bus is too comfortable.

Posted by: Don | May 15, 2008 11:05 PM

The people here are picking on Obama are racist.

When you think of the 400 years of oppression of black people, why not cut him some slack when he tells a fib?

When will white people get it?

Posted by: LeBron | May 15, 2008 11:06 PM

I challenge all BO supporters - male or female to read the article below and still claim that BO does not lie

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

Can you read through all of this and yet claim that BO is a saint after all !!

Posted by: Ash | May 15, 2008 11:06 PM

Is the reporter trying to say that actually the Detroit Economic Club is in FAVOR of higher fuel efficiency standards? I think we need some evidence of that other than polite applause during a guest's speech?
Posted by: Vito | May 15, 2008 11:05 PM
-------------------------
The reporter is saying nothing like that at all. The reporter is pointing out that Obama lied. That he said he received no applause, that no one clapped, when the evidence shows otherwise. She is pointing out his embellishment and lies about a story as he panders to people.

Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 11:07 PM

Obama passed gas when he sneezed the other day but he covered his mouth with a hankerchief...

Posted by: justanotherwoman | May 15, 2008 11:07 PM

Stop trivializing this election.

Posted by: meta | May 15, 2008 11:08 PM

Good grief. How hard would it be to, you know, cover policy? Do you know anything about fuel emission standards? Do you care? If you don't, it's nothing to be ashamed of, but maybe you're in the wrong line of work.

Posted by: Ted | May 15, 2008 11:09 PM

Sweetie. This clapping thing is a real big story for a professional 'journalist' like yourself. Hold it close and own it 'cuz it's really gonna change a lot of folks minds. Yeah. Sure. It's the big story of the day.

Posted by: Fred Dodsworth | May 15, 2008 11:09 PM

First Obama calls a female reporter "sweetie", now this gaffe.

It's going to be a 40 state blow-out for McCain. It's Raining McCain!

Posted by: Mitch | May 15, 2008 11:09 PM

Just drink the kool aid.

Posted by: getalife | May 15, 2008 11:10 PM

Also for the people who claim the Clintons are racist , wait until you hear what the Republicans are trying to dig up on Michele Obama ...

read this article

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

Posted by: Ash | May 15, 2008 11:11 PM

Even watching the Youtube, it is very tepid applause. Polite, but obviously what I would call icy.

Posted by: Memekiller | May 15, 2008 11:11 PM

Obama told an audience stunned into silence after greeting him with a standing ovation."Whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could've saved their industry. Even as they've shed thousands of jobs and billions in profits over the last few years, they've continued to reward failure with lucrative bonuses for CEOs."

A smattering of applause after a standing ovation would sound like no one clapping to someone on a podium. Everyone who says he is a liar is an idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:11 PM

This article seems petty. The point was that the speech received a cool reception, which was true. This is very different than what Hillary did with the sniper fire story.

Posted by: Lee | May 15, 2008 11:12 PM

Danielle -- oh, okay. I just thought there would actually be a point to the story if Obama was lying about this being an example of telling people what they don't want to hear. So he was right about that. Thanks for providing confirmation.

Posted by: Vito | May 15, 2008 11:13 PM

Tepid applause or not, he said there was none. He is a liar.
Posted by: Danielle | May 15, 2008 11:02 PM

I am tired of your tedious obsessive rant. If he is, he can't hold a candle to the egregious, flagrant, and pathological lying that is the embodiment of your political corpse of a candidate.

Posted by: getholdof yourself | May 15, 2008 11:17 PM

I challenge all BO supporters - male or female to read the article below and still claim that BO does not lie

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

Can you read through all of this and yet claim that BO is a saint after all !!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:18 PM

Seriously? Looking to discredit not what he said but the amount of applause it got? So Detroit automakers were willing to pay meaningless lip service to the idea of higher fuel standards? Is that supposed to be shocking? At the worst, it's a question of perception: anyone who's spoken publicly knows that the speaker's perception of a speech can be vastly different from the audience's.

Making up a story about being under sniper fire, in the other hand, is the behavior of a straight-up sociopath.

When I first saw this article, I assumed someone was asserting that Obama didn't say what he claimed to have said. This is silly, truly meaningless hairsplitting.

Time to come to terms with reality: Clinton has lost the nomination. It (thank God) is not going to be given to her by reverse-affirmative action, however much she or her followers might hope so. Further, if she or her followers want to trash Obama's chances or vote for McCain, I say go ahead. Just understand that when McCain talks about winning the war in four years, he's talking about conscription. So you can make your political point if you want--just be prepared to pony up a son (or maybe daughter). Oh, and forget about Roe v. Wade. Not a prayer on that.

Posted by: JMurphy | May 15, 2008 11:20 PM

This is the dumbest piece of 'Gotcha" journalism I've ever seen. Trying to judge backwards how much applause there was in a room and how it sounded to the speaker is ridiculous. Trying is compare a subjective report of the amount of applause to whether or not somebody was shot at, is totally absurd. Write something serious for a change.

Posted by: atp2007 | May 15, 2008 11:22 PM

Wow. What a spectacularly stupid comparison. It's amazing you have a job at a major newspaper.

Posted by: David anthony | May 15, 2008 11:22 PM

Quick, Ms Freifeld, you might want to check your computer's security settings. I believe it has been taken over by a complete idiot, who is posting stories in your name!!

This is beyond absurd. If you don't have anything worthwhile to write about then take the day off or something. Hell, go see a film and tell us about it, but this is pathetic.

Posted by: forreal?? | May 15, 2008 11:24 PM

Hillary told a bald face lie. Obama said the didn't clap and they did. So what. Is that the story thats supposed to know everybody socks off. Get a real story.

Posted by: Linda | May 15, 2008 11:28 PM

Is this the Northwest Current?

Posted by: Bill T. | May 15, 2008 11:28 PM

It's trivial, and this is coming from a strong McCain supporter. Lying about running under sniper fire is very different than lying about applause. The former, you have to be delusional to believe. The latter, you just have to be tired.

What this does go toward showing, though, is that Obama is a politican; just like McCain and Clinton. He's not some post-modern Messiah, but just your regular latter-day articulate politician with flaws and strengths.

Posted by: Nathan | May 15, 2008 11:28 PM

I thought it was nice work. I'm surprised by the fiereceness of the Obama supporters. It's a basic response, is it? Any criticism of your candidate is unfair.

That's not how it's supposed to go in a civilized democracy, ladies and gentlemen. He told an aggrandizing story, and a good reporter found the tape. I'm sorry it doesn't curl a halo around Senator Obama, but that doesn't make her any less strong as a journalist.

You might try applying some standards to your behavior. "Gotcha" journalism got Obama this far -- the NBC ambush in the November, 2007 NBC Debate; journalism being what journalism is -- it's fatal love of novelty -- drove him from December to March; and some Clinton missteps (no caucus organization) allowed him to put a lot of points on the board. After that, it's been nothing much from Senator Obama -- such a poor showing that the party has to prop him up with endorsements and powerful friends. But I'm glad he has you enthusiastic; maybe you can talk yourselves into enjoying his performances.

PS Politics is theatre; that's why he's where he is. He isn't there for any special expertise or experience. So why reject a theatre judgement?


Posted by: Pnin | May 15, 2008 11:30 PM

This post is a waste of time! Who proofreads the grammar in your post?

Posted by: David Blackburn | May 15, 2008 11:31 PM

COME ON!!!!!!!!!!

this is NOT the same as Hillabee's sniper fire comments. He was there and read the room -- which the coverage supports -- that it wasn't recieved warmly by the auto executives in attendance.

get real

Posted by: whereistherealreporting? | May 15, 2008 11:31 PM

Isn't it strange that for someone who chooses to inspire through his words Obama has many words that need re-explaining?

Posted by: Jim | May 15, 2008 11:31 PM

Emily Freifeld, are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending?

Posted by: reino | May 15, 2008 11:32 PM

why is the post so full of hacks like you?

Posted by: chillmark | May 15, 2008 11:35 PM

The level of stupidity among my fellow Americans has risen to the point where it is KILLING us. Nobody can see the big picture. Nobody can see the forest for the trees. It's just all tribal warfare cult of personality monkey brain idiocy. When I read the assinine comments to this NON-STORY--I makes me ashamed to be an American. And I am white! Just freaking stop it you idiots!!!!!!

Posted by: c4logic | May 15, 2008 11:36 PM

Today, McCain said, "Next January, the political leadership of the United States will change significantly." It was caught on tape. Is this a concession speech? When will McCain be asked to clarify this statement that he will not be the next POTUS?

Posted by: reino | May 15, 2008 11:36 PM

crack reporting there. solved the case of the non-issue. phew!

Posted by: paul | May 15, 2008 11:38 PM

Right, this is the the same as claiming you were shot at.

More fake controversy.

Posted by: Six | May 15, 2008 11:39 PM

To you hopeful Obama dreamers-Hypocrites all.

Posted by: JCTSS | May 15, 2008 11:39 PM

Dear WaPo, please send Emily Freifeld back to doing xeroxes and licking envelopes, as she hasn't quite caught on with the whole "news" thing. Her idea of news is evidently is throw up some right wing Youtube advertisement without any new reporting or fact-checking and then to ask her readers, "so, is there a story here?" Um, no Emily, that's not how it works.

Posted by: GoldSoundz | May 15, 2008 11:39 PM


Hillary must remember every little detail from 11 years ago. But Obama he can misspoke things happened last week. Obama said he has visited 57 states. Oh he was tired ... let him rest. Hillary was lack of sleep, no, no, we have a different standard for her.

Posted by: Jamal | May 15, 2008 11:40 PM

please oh please make it stop. please make the stupid stop. the stupid is killing us.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:40 PM

First Obama says he's been to all 57 states. Then he calls a female reporter "sweetie". Now he lies about not getting applause in Detroit, when he actually received a standing ovation.

OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A SENATOR, LET ALONE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 11:41 PM

your sh!t's weak, Emily.

Posted by: firenze_italia | May 15, 2008 11:41 PM

No.

This has been yet another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by: Travis | May 15, 2008 11:42 PM

Good God. Every time you think the journalistic profession could not possibly take another body blow...

Incredible.

Please. Make. It. Stop. The. Stupid. Hurts. My. Head.

Posted by: SM | May 15, 2008 11:42 PM

No need for Obama to clarify this particular comment.

HE SHOULD CLARIFY HOW WAS HE "SURPRISED" ON REV. WRIGHT'S COMMENTS AFTER 20 YEARS?

The bottom line is that Obama has not been truthful to the American people, and is not honest, period.

Posted by: GY | May 15, 2008 11:44 PM

Ms. Freifeld - it's time to give up on Hillary. She has lost the nomination. Folks like you just need to learn to let go. I know it may be hard, I know how disappointing it can be to lose a hard-fought campaign (believe you me, I know this very well) but you and your fellow Hillary surrogates really need to accept the wisdom of the Democratic electorate.

Posted by: reader | May 15, 2008 11:44 PM

Obama is a fraud. Nothing but a fraud.

All his black supporters are racists.

He is in this position becasue he is black.

Good Luck nation! You get what you deserve !!!

Posted by: Shawn | May 15, 2008 11:46 PM

I don't give a crap about either the sniper fire or the applause story. Concentrate on getting our soldiers out of harm's way, greenhouse gases, how to enable everyone to receive decent medical treatment, and which candidate can deliver the votes to turn the rascals out. Don't bother me with this extraneous garbage.

Posted by: Swampdweller | May 15, 2008 11:46 PM

Well, I can see how compared to the War in Iraq, Global Climate Change, Health Care, Education, and [post your favorite here] raking Sen. Obama over the coals over an alleged difference about just who applauded when is CRITICAL!!!!!!

Note to self, it is impossible to parody the navel-gazing inanity of the MSM.

Posted by: TNThorpe | May 15, 2008 11:46 PM

Obama is never truthful !!

Posted by: Corey | May 15, 2008 11:47 PM

Get a real job, Emily, because you stink at this one.

Posted by: Rich | May 15, 2008 11:48 PM

Obama says every stupidity but his followers find excuses to racionalized why they vote for him. They blame everyone else but their fake prodigy boy. If you dare to say something you are a racist and you are called names. Watch out for the Obamanists.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:48 PM

If you google the writer, she's been out of college for like an hour. Fire her editor.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:48 PM

Pathetic.

Posted by: Matt Schapiro | May 15, 2008 11:50 PM

Y o u
a r e
a n
i d i o t

Posted by: max | May 15, 2008 11:51 PM

Dawn's links strangle this ugly baby of a "story" in its crib.

Posted by: OD | May 15, 2008 11:52 PM

Ms. Freifeld - Are you really so lost in all of this that all you can do is waste your time posting video such as this. A weak polite clap is not a thunderous roar.

What mother would take her daughter into sniper fire and then boast about it in a lie - just to win?

Hillary did, or said she did, and then it was proven she lied.

Please go find something useful to do with your life. It will be all over soon and Barack will be the nominee.

Posted by: mh | May 15, 2008 11:53 PM

Are you as stupid as this essay makes you sound, Emily?

Posted by: Milo Johnson | May 15, 2008 11:56 PM

Hey, what a minute. There could be another explanation for this post. Maybe Emily's not so stupid. Maybe Emily doesn't even exist. Maybe this is just a clever way to get Barack Obama supporters angry enough to post a response, so that their ip addresses can be retrieved and then fed into the Terrorist Surveillance Program database.

Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2008 11:56 PM

This is reporting? Please, please PLEASE actually talk to a candidate about an actual issue. We are all so tired of this.

Posted by: Mike Keller | May 15, 2008 11:58 PM

Obama's misstatement, caught on tape, is somewhat reminiscent of Sen. Hillary Clinton's story of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia --

DO YOU EVEN COMPREHEND PARALLEL STRUCTURE? Did they clap vs. Was there sniper fire?

Shame on you, Emily. LAZY reporting.

Posted by: TongueUntied | May 16, 2008 12:04 AM

Emily, it's time to do some real investigative journalism to see if Obama has ever farted in public. There must be video.

Posted by: gomer | May 16, 2008 12:07 AM

That really is as JMM said "200 MPH stupid" and a glaring example of why I read TPM and HuffPo and not dead-tree media.

Congratulations on truly lowering the level of discourse with this one!

Posted by: J Byrd | May 16, 2008 12:13 AM

That wasn't clapping... it was sniper fire.

Posted by: HillaryRocks08 | May 16, 2008 12:14 AM

Great people talk about great things, Average people talk about average things and little people gossip! Please!

Posted by: Chagrined | May 16, 2008 12:14 AM

Saying an audience didn't clap is the same as saying you landed in a foreign land under sniper fire?

Running out of ideas for your little video blog, Emily?

Posted by: BB | May 16, 2008 12:14 AM

Let your thoughts be known in comments section.

Emily,

My thoughts are that this is an idiotic article. Is this what your employers pay you for? They did or didn't clap? Go back to your desk and do your bloody job.

Posted by: brooksfoe | May 16, 2008 12:15 AM

How did I know that this article was written by a women before I saw the signature?
It looks like you grabbed your 15 minutes of fame and it did not work out too well.

Posted by: Schmedlap | May 16, 2008 12:16 AM

The answer to your stupid question is: no.

N-O

NO!

Pardon me miss, but you're an idiot.

Posted by: oleeb | May 16, 2008 12:24 AM

god, you people just don't get it. there's no story here. move along. find some real news.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 12:24 AM

Are you kidding me? You're comparing getting applause or not to landing under sniper fire and claiming to have risked her life?

Get a life!!!

Posted by: crabby at you | May 16, 2008 12:28 AM

Let me guess...you went to the National Enquirer school of journalism.

Posted by: crabby at you | May 16, 2008 12:31 AM

Emily: Get a life.

Posted by: Paul R. | May 16, 2008 12:34 AM

Don't be such a corporate hack. America deserves better than this. It's because of people like you, who bent over backwards to rig two elections for Bush, that we're in the mess we're in right now.

Posted by: Tim | May 16, 2008 12:37 AM

Is this a joke? Is the Washington Post comparing an interpretation about APPLAUSE to repeated false assertions about SNIPER FIRE?

this is too ridiculous for words.

Posted by: Seth Bullock | May 16, 2008 12:38 AM

are you freaking kidding me? What is wrong with the media?

I personally didn't care about hillary and the sniper thing either...when is the media going to figure out that WE DON'T F*CKING CARE ABOUT THIS. Please report on something real.....

Posted by: kiva | May 16, 2008 12:59 AM

Hi. Terrible piece!

At least on the internet it's free to read and I get to leave a little comment to the effect that I was insulted that you'd think I'd find this important. At all. Please, next time, instead make with real reporting on real issues that have some real possibility of affecting our future. Really.

Can you imagine how angry I'd be if I subscribed to a hard-copy publication and paid for the privilege of reading this sort of drivel? Of course, as you probably guessed, I don't.

Posted by: Phil | May 16, 2008 1:10 AM

As you can see from my name, I don't have much of a dog in this fight.

This post is the stupidest thing I've seen in the last couple of hours (and trolling political sites, I get to see a lot of stupid).

Now, if he makes it a major theme of his campaign...fine. But until then, you're nit-picking.

Posted by: Voting 3rd Party | May 16, 2008 1:19 AM

As I already pointed out, nobody clapped when Obama said that fuel standards had to be raised and we need a new way of thinking. In most speeches, there are "applause lines", the red meat of the speech.

Obama is completely correct, there was no red meat for them, and they barely clapped even when he said that all cars don't have to be made in Japan.

Obama was 100% correct.

BP

Posted by: billpaustin | May 16, 2008 1:22 AM

Krishna~

It helps to have the facts straight before calling someone(or multipe people) out:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080514/BUSINESS01/805140387/1014

"Obama's Tough Talk Backfires in Motown":
http://www.newsweek.com/id/34740

"Bill Ford, Jr. Miffed by Obama's Criticism of Auto Industry":
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277013,00.html

Clever use of a Democratic moniker though. I'll give you that, dark blue.

Posted by: Namaste | May 16, 2008 1:41 AM

Totally lame manufactoversy.

Notice that the applause wasn't even for lower fuel standards, but for the idea that if the gov't helps the auto industry defray health care costs, then the automakers should increase fuel standards.

Hardly the same thing.

Where do they find these people?

Posted by: Rhino | May 16, 2008 1:43 AM

I don't think this issue requires any kind of correction, because Barack Obama said nothing that could reasonably be construed as a deception by the general guidelines of common English.

Basically, the critics on this one don't know the difference between a literal and a figurative statement. There's a big difference.

Literal statement: I was shot at and had to run away.

Figurative statement: I went there, but nobody was happy to see me.

Really, all Obama needs to do in order to cut this off is basically say the above from now on, and if asked about it, say:

"So, then you heard the deafening applause I received there, right?! It was a pretty restrained, polite reaction to one of my speeches... but I didn't go there to tell people what they wanted to hear. I went there to tell them what they needed to hear..."

Really, this is a real non-issue that would probably only help him if called by anyone on it, because it's so insubstantial as to be seen by most as a petty attack and a cheap shot.

Posted by: Mark Kraft | May 16, 2008 1:45 AM

I guess next well be served a scathing diatribe on Obama's haircut and how much it cost.

Christ. Somebody at the post go back to Journalism 101 and actually write some copy on issues that matter to us.

Memo to the WashPost: If you want to be a tabloid light service people are going to opt out and get the real thing. And the newpaper industry is scratching its head as to why circulation is dropping nationwide? May I submit my resume for the We Don't Have A Clue beat?

Posted by: Trumandem | May 16, 2008 1:49 AM

This is not journalism.

Washington Post - please try to have some standards. Pretend you're a real paper.

Try to do some actual reporting, not just gathering some 'he said, she said' crap from the internet, slapping up and pretending it's respectable.

And try not to be so biased against Democrats. I know it's hard, but you can be more fair and balanced than Fox if you really try.

Posted by: Chad | May 16, 2008 1:59 AM

I guess not all politicians can be wrapped in the warm piss-blanket of the Bush Adminstration's faux reality. If you could, Miss Emily, make a list of twenty things that Bush has said that are total BS. Until you can look at things in a bi-partisan way, you'll have to sit on the sidelines. The Republican revolution is over. They wound up beheading themselves from greed, wasteful spending, and sex scandals. Didn't need any help from the Dems.

Posted by: Fred | May 16, 2008 2:13 AM

You Obama cultists are nuts. Really. I "accepted" Kerry and voted for him. However, this year I was *happy* that I can choose between Hillary and Obama, both of whom are infinitely better than McCain (or any repub who ran this year).

This isn't a pro-Hillary, anti-Obama article. Its (1) an attempt to get a Drudge link and (2) a typical, "it will only get worse" bash on Democrats.

GET IT?? Its NOT about Hillary. Or Obama. Dems are easy targets because they NEVER fight back.

You members of the Obama cult (who I 100% plan to vote for! Or whatever Dem is running! Honestly!) are scaring a lot of people away. Stop freaking out; stop attacking Hillary - you know, that woman that's got more votes than Obama in the big states? The woman we'll need the help of?

Open your eyes. Stop being so embarrassing. This is a DEM bashing article, its the typical attack, and you people decide its the perfect time to...attack another Dem? Brilliant!

Posted by: Save Me | May 16, 2008 2:15 AM

Whether or not people clapped in Detroit is so so very important to the future of this country, and Emily Freifeld is the most important journalist since Edward R. Murrow. Thank you for bringing this really really important youtube clip to our attention.

God you people really do think we're all idiots, don't you?

Posted by: TJJS | May 16, 2008 2:16 AM

Not much more to say that hasn't been said. Hopefully you've learned your lesson Emily. I see that you're just out of college and apparently new to the job. I would tend to give you a pass for this reason. But then again, this post of yours, in addition to being ignorant and just a really shoddy piece of journalism, is just so mean spirited, that I just don't feel you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Also, I've just watched a video of you on YouTube where you mock autism. That pretty much seals it.

So here's the deal. (1) Stop posting the drivel. (2) Let go of the Clinton fantasy. Look at the delegate math. Look at it closely. Ask a friend to explain it to you, perhaps. Understand that the only ones holding out hope for Clinton at this point are the woefully under-educated. Speaking of which, (3) get yourself to grad school. And then (4) come back to us in about 5 years, by which time you'll hopefully have gained the life experience to know that, among other things... what you did just there... don't do that.

Posted by: Piling On | May 16, 2008 2:22 AM

BTW, notice the article is basically structured as so: (1) Hillary is a horrible liar who had to account for her lying about Bosnia, so (2) Shouldn't Obama be considered a liar as well, cause he said [most inane attempt at creating a media scandal I've seen...really].

Obama nuts, do this: "Democrat A lied and got bashed because of it! Now, will Democrat B suffer as well!?"

Easier to understand? That maybe instead of "well, uh, hillary lied worse!" a better response would be to list the Bush Admin crimes (literal crimes, ugh...and then we get an article like this), and ask when they'll be asked to explain.

Posted by: Save Me | May 16, 2008 2:35 AM

Emily,
I guess they didn't have journalism classes at your school. Or maybe you didn't attend them. Maybe you were too busy working on your myspace page.

But maybe this will help you. Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html?nav=hcmodule

Read it slowly if that will make it easier for you to follow. And maybe strive for something a little closer to this next time.

Good luck!

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 2:41 AM

you're kidding, right? this is comparable to claiming that you and your daughter were shot at? you can't be serious. this isn't even an error, and may be the wrong speech in the first place. is the whole race going to be covered with this level of inanity?

Posted by: Ben Jenkins | May 16, 2008 3:20 AM

Never heard of Emily Freifeld until I read this. Now I know that any future reference to her is to another unfortunate bubblehead whom the grandees of our national press have given an absurdly big platform to spout nonsense.

Posted by: AK in SF | May 16, 2008 3:37 AM

I'm not sure this is about Obama as much as it's about product strategies and the like from the Motor City. In a time when the handwriting was on the wall in big bold letters the U.S. automotive industry, for whatever reasons, was unable to alter its strategy. Loss of market share to competitors was an inevitable outcome of the failure to change. The dynamics of the marketplace, not the players, establish the rules. Detroit has never adjusted to the competitive changes in the automotive marketplace. Gone are the days when Detroit called the shots. No matter what Obama may have said he is merely the messenger. Any dislike of the message is more about those persons on the receiving end of the message than the other way around. People can easily decipher a garbled message and know its meaning. Arguing about this is just a way of ignoring reality.

Posted by: JK | May 16, 2008 4:02 AM

What the hell is wrong with you, emilie whoever the hell you are. WAKE UP! GROW UP!

Posted by: Ed | May 16, 2008 4:09 AM

Do you have any comments on the substance of his speech, or are you just going to fixate on vapid trivia?

Posted by: hauntmeister | May 16, 2008 4:44 AM

this is news ???

quibbling about the level of aplause that Obama received in Detroit in 2007 ???

how many boxes of crackerjacks did you have to buy before you found the journalism degree sweetie ???

does lil debbie snack cake know you write such drivil ???

cuz your readers do

Posted by: free patriot | May 16, 2008 4:56 AM

The statement the way it is written in his stump speech (he's been using it since at least October) is "the room got really quiet; very few people clapped." Which seems like an accurate analysis, if that is the moment he has been referring to.

Obviously "nobody clapped" was a stretch, and Obama recognized it immediately and corrected himself with the proper line.

Posted by: Steve Charb | May 16, 2008 5:09 AM

seriously

this is the washington post ???

damn

and I thought the NY Times had become a joke

my local repuglitard fishwrapper doesn't even publish stuff that is this embarassing to their profession

and they print FISH tales

Posted by: free patriot | May 16, 2008 5:12 AM

anybody else notice that the post below this one is an article about mccain's new ad ???

the article is nothing but a mccain press release

did anybody else notice the disparity here ???

guess they send the stenographers to cover mccain and the clown college grads to cover Obama

that might explain why the wapo delivers mccain's pablum and then tries to create a controversy by quibbling about Obama's honesty

anybody ???

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 5:34 AM

Yep, he exaggerated when he said "nobody". There was scattered applause. But his point was still valid, unlike Hillary's blatant outrageous lie. No comparison.

Posted by: Fel | May 16, 2008 5:58 AM

When you're the media darling you don't need to own up to anything.

Posted by: Rachel | May 16, 2008 6:00 AM

Clearly a campaign wrecking gaffe that he must immediately apologise for.

On a totally unrelated note, GWB compared Obama to Nazi appeasers in Israel on their 60th anniversary - mischaracterising his position (in fact, it was McCain who believed the US should compromise with Hamas, back in 2006); the Pentagon used dozens of retired Army figures for propaganda in thousands of interviews in the run up to the Iraq war; the rockets in Iraq the military accused of being supplied by Iran weren't manufactured in Iran, yet the drum beat for military action continues.

But by all means, this is crucially important news that must be repeated for a few weeks until Obama gives a ground breaking speech on accidentally saying there was no clapping when there clearly was clapping.

Posted by: JWH | May 16, 2008 6:13 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I almost thought there was something relevant here. But yeah, lying about sniper fire is EXACTLY the same is lying about clapping. Of course, he mentioned AFTER THE SPEECH, so the video shows nothing. But that's really nit-picking.

And yes, Virginia, there are WMD.

Posted by: CranialRectalLoopback | May 16, 2008 6:13 AM

This is a junior high school newspaper concept. And I'm probably being unfair to junior high school editors and reporters as most of them aspire to more than this.

Posted by: darrix | May 16, 2008 6:15 AM

The entire speech - not just a tiny clip from the end - is available on youtube, as uploaded by Obama's campaign last year - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g

Watch it. There are a few points where he does get some mild applause - like after talking about protecting jobs in the automotive industry - but mostly the room was silent. Right after he talks about protecting jobs and gets applause, he talks about higher fuel efficiency standards. Silence.

Obama's claims are accurate, and the most basic level of research - watching the easily available speech in its 12 minute entirety - would have shown that.

Posted by: Aengil | May 16, 2008 6:17 AM

I have to know, Emily.

Are you a political operative or are you really that stupid?

If it's the former, then I understand the intention of this post, but if it's the latter, you really need to find work in another field and the Washington Post should help you out the door.

Posted by: littlesky | May 16, 2008 6:44 AM

So journalism is officially dead. Good to know.

Posted by: TR | May 16, 2008 6:52 AM

I'm praying that this is a result of Take Your Daughter to Work Day and Emily is really six years old.

Because if a grown-up bothered to write this ...

Posted by: John S. | May 16, 2008 6:54 AM

Uh, "mona"... in mostly Islamic countries (like Afghanistan), because it is the common practice in Islam to read and recite the Koran in Arabic, nearly everyone, no matter their tribal language, speaks some Arabic. As a result, if you don't have translators who speak all the tribal languages, it is useful in Afghanistan to have people working for you who speak Arabic.

Posted by: tbetz | May 16, 2008 6:57 AM

What a bunch of nonsense! Is this all you got Emily? More distractions? You're taking issue over whether or not people applauded his speech. You're either a GOP operative or a buffoon - which means of course that you could easily be both.

Posted by: alex | May 16, 2008 7:00 AM

Looks like the WaPo is looking for new ways to incorporate video in their "coverage." This is a marketing tool for the .com part of the paper. And it's working.

Posted by: KN | May 16, 2008 7:01 AM

In the clip at the Detroit Economic Club, Obama first promises to help the automakers partially defray the expenses of health care costs, then he says that in return the automakers need to return those savings into making more fuel efficient cars. The polite applause by the audience is because they are being promised something they want-which is to get rid of their health care costs. If the automakers were enthusiastic about making more fuel efficient cars without being bribed to do so, they would have done it already.

In the 2008 Indiana clip, he is intentionally making a joke saying that nobody clapped. The audience knows this and laughed.

What should Obama apologize for? For implying Detroit automakers haven't been leaders in making cars with high fuel efficiency? Duh. You got any evidence to the contrary-like the tens of millions of small american-made hybrid cars getting 65 miles to the gallon that we have all been driving for the last 2 decades?

There is nothing for Obama to apologize for. Although Emily Freifeld and ObamaDetroit should appologize for comparing apples to oranges and trying to make something out of nothing.

Please stop.

Posted by: June | May 16, 2008 7:09 AM

I will eagerly await a story which speculates about the left-handed BHO being caught on video using scissors like a right-handed person.

Posted by: AudioGuy | May 16, 2008 7:14 AM

OMG. This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life. This is the best you people have? Disagreements over applause? Puhleeez. Give us all a break from your stupidity, OK? You should find a line of work better suited to your level of intelligence. Theater usher, perhaps.

Posted by: Mark F | May 16, 2008 7:24 AM

This is an 8.7 on the stupid scale.
I find it absolutley unbeievable that this 3rd rate hackery classes as journalism.

Posted by: Poco | May 16, 2008 7:25 AM

Can we please talk about real issues instead of all this "gotcha" bullsh*t? We are rapidly approaching what is likely the most important presidential election of my lifetime, and this is the kind of garbage you want to focus on?

You people - and by "you people," I primarily mean the media - are idiots.

Posted by: spencer | May 16, 2008 7:29 AM

The entire speech - not just a tiny clip from the end - is available on youtube, as uploaded by Obama's campaign last year - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g

Watch it. There are a few points where he does get some mild applause - like after talking about protecting jobs in the automotive industry - but mostly the room was silent. Right after he talks about protecting jobs and gets applause, he talks about higher fuel efficiency standards. Silence.

Obama's claims are accurate, and the most basic level of research - watching the easily available speech in its 12 minute entirety - would have shown that.

Posted by: Rinse-repeat | May 16, 2008 8:02 AM

The entire speech - not just a tiny clip from the end - is available on youtube, as uploaded by Obama's campaign last year - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g

Watch it. There are a few points where he does get some mild applause - like after talking about protecting jobs in the automotive industry - but mostly the room was silent. Right after he talks about protecting jobs and gets applause, he talks about higher fuel efficiency standards. Silence.

Obama's claims are accurate, and the most basic level of research - watching the easily available speech in its 12 minute entirety - would have shown that.

Posted by: For-the-slow-people | May 16, 2008 8:03 AM

Looks like no one's buying your trumped-up pseudoscandal, Emily. Congratulations, Washington Post readers; shame on you, Washington Post.

Posted by: buddhistMonkey | May 16, 2008 8:05 AM

Wow, that's weak Emily. I'd think this was a silly MySpace blog, but on the Washington Post? Try harder.

Posted by: brian | May 16, 2008 8:19 AM

You've got to be kidding. You think the two are comparable? What happened to newspapers (especially those traditionally held in high esteem, like the Washington Post) exercising some sense in determining what is published under their names and what is not. What about providing Ms. Frefield's space to someone who might provide real reporting or analysis on, say, McCain's reversal on contacts with Hamas, or Bush's outrageous political statements while at the Knesset yesterday.

Please.

Posted by: jill paperno | May 16, 2008 8:38 AM

Is this really what passes for campaign coverage these days? Un-f'ing-believable.

You're going with one admittedly "spliced" video, the only ever posted by some YouTube newbie, as if the full video of the speech simply can't be found anywhere.

Does WaPo actually support this crap?

Posted by: GOPstopper | May 16, 2008 8:57 AM

hahahahaha! that good ol' Wash Po. Worth exactly what it costs online -- nothing!

Emily you really need to put down the keyboard and think of a new career path. You do not have a way with words and you definitely are not a persuasive writer. Sorry.

Posted by: ohyeswewill | May 16, 2008 9:18 AM

wait wait, this is the Washington Post?

Truly a modern day watergate, bravo.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 9:27 AM

In the immortal words of Atrios and following a link from Josh Marshall....OOOOOOhhhhhh the stupid, it burns.

Posted by: hoosierville | May 16, 2008 9:29 AM

Article by woman misrepresents facts in story about man who is going to take the nomination away from a woman.

Hmmmmm. Is this an example of good, objective journalism, or just more personal agenda masked as journalism?

Or, maybe, it's a passive-aggressive attack just because he's a man? Inquiring minds want to know. Although I have noticed that the female anchors and on-air personalities do seem to have taken sides. Gender neutrality my a**.

Here's the whole speech. Judge for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g

Posted by: Not Surprised | May 16, 2008 9:30 AM

Good Lord, we are paying $3.72 a gal for gas, $700-1800 a month for health care, spending Billions a month on a war we can't win in Iraq, and you are asking if Obama should "clarify" his statements about getting or not getting applause, is that what the most important election in our time is all about? How do these people get these jobs, let alone hold them?

Posted by: Henk | May 16, 2008 9:34 AM

this is one of the dumber posts i've read this election season.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 9:39 AM

Everyday reporters go out and embarrass themselves with this nonsense, and then the idiots who pay them sit around crying in their beer and wondering why their readership is falling.

Posted by: Ed Sanders | May 16, 2008 9:41 AM

Shooter McGavin: "I eat pieces of s*** like you for breakfast."
Happy Gilmore: "Ha ha.. You eat pieces of s*** for breakfast?"

This story? It's like that.

Posted by: Skippy | May 16, 2008 9:42 AM

Clapping? Really?

This is a campaign issue on a mainstream news blog?

I have no words to accurately describe how ridiculous this is.

Posted by: duckspeaker | May 16, 2008 9:43 AM

Oy vey !

Posted by: echo | May 16, 2008 9:48 AM

Holy Crap, Audioguy says Obama is left handed! He's been hiding that fact all along? Will the American people elect a left handed person to be president? Does the Hillary camp know? Is this why she's staying in, waiting for this, sure to be, huge scandal to explode?

Quick Emily, get on it. This could be your next big scoop.

Posted by: Henk | May 16, 2008 9:51 AM

Hilarious. Please add these comments to your "resume tape", Emily. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbk6jKa_Fq0

It looks like you're just starting out, and obviously an editor has failed you here. But you gotta be able to self edit the stupid. And this? This was just stupid. No kinder way to put it.

Posted by: MB | May 16, 2008 9:52 AM

Meanwhile, John McCain is caught on tape endorsing direct talks with Hamas in 2006.
(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195384.php)
But that's...different.
That's...Mr. Straighttalk.

Posted by: John Norris | May 16, 2008 9:53 AM

So now the amount of clapping is an issue, REALLY? WaPo is sinking beneath the weight of its own excrement.

WaPo, what happened to your journalistic integrity? Oh wait, you never had any.


Posted by: John Wells | May 16, 2008 9:55 AM

Emily, I think it is time to think about doing something else for a living. Maybe you could get a radio gig and then get a slot on Hardball so Chris Mathews can show millions of peopole how smart you aren't.

Posted by: Kurt | May 16, 2008 10:02 AM

Emily Freifeld says, "In the 30-minute speech, ", but the speach is not 30-minutes. . . it's 29 minutes and 12 seconds. Will Emily have to apologize to the country for her inability to look at a simple clock.

My God!!! Can you really waste this much air?

Posted by: just plain stupid | May 16, 2008 10:13 AM

Emily, this is really, really hard hitting stuff. Set that video to some ominous music, and you have the first great attack ad of 2008.

Maybe splice in some black and white footage of some dude saying:

"I was there. I heard someone clapping. It was only kind of quiet, not really quiet."

And another:

"Barack Obama is not telling the truth."(insert echo effect)

Then superimpose slow motion footage of clapping hands. Fade to black - then the words "Fit for Command?" in white. Fade to black.

The "Fuel Efficiency Clappers for Truth" will surely make John McCain president.

Posted by: HeavyJ | May 16, 2008 10:14 AM

Yes, the two situations are the same -- beleving you were under sniper fire and not believing that there were people clapping at a certain point in a speech. Please Emily, go back to the school and learn a little about journalism. There is more to working for a newspaper than randomly pulling together video clips -- some basic skills at analysis and reasoning are needed so you can actually figure out when two situations are equivalent. Sniper fire and clapping -- god help us.

Posted by: RP | May 16, 2008 10:20 AM

Here's the text>
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/07/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_12.php

The video referred to here clearly excerpt a very selctive part of the speech, one where he says he will cut health care costs in return for higher CAFE standards. earlier when he was just talking about fuel efficiency, the crowd is much quieter.

Here's video of the speech, starting at 9:00 minutes in he addresses fuel efficiency and the need for Detroit to change its ways. It's pretty tough talk and for most of it it is in fact very quiet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g

Posted by: Joe | May 16, 2008 10:22 AM

you need to get a life.

Posted by: Emily, | May 16, 2008 10:41 AM

Oh gosh, lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill here. This is simply grabbing for straws.

Suffice to say that all American automakers have been fighting tooth and nail NOT to have their energy efficient improved - I'm not sure why, since I really think consumers WANT this to take place. It is almost as if automakers have some kind of secret pact with big oil.

"We'll build really big, gas sucking autos, make lots of money and THEN big oil gets it's turn to sap the same poor suckers that were stupid enough to buy our ultra gas hog autos and take these same stupid idiots to cleaners."

Then there are those Washington jerks like John McCain - encouraging, telling Americans to work two jobs to pay the difference.

I don't want a car that I have to "plug into an electric outlet" since if you don't get taken to cleaners at the pump, you'll most certainly get it in your electric bill - I want something on the lines of fuel cell techology - I don't want to do business with Chevy or Ford - because they don't cared about Americans. I tired of them fighting to keep something automakers should be willing providing to consumers on their own. Chevy, GM, Ford don't care about innovation, don't care about safety - we know this because congress has had to fight with these companies every step of the way for any improvements whatsoever.

It's time for new automakers, it's time for companies with vision and ability to make it so I can spend time with family - American automakers are too busy holding hands with big oil to care about Americans needs. Under that comment, do Ford and Chevy deserve to stay in business anymore - the answer is NO. Somebody out there has a way to by-pass every Exxon/Mobil, Chevon, and BP gas station out there. THAT's what I want. That's what I think is absolutely fair.

Posted by: Me-again | May 16, 2008 10:52 AM

Wow, this is a pathetic article. I didn't realize the Washington Post was handed out jobs in boxes of cracker jacks.

Posted by: Steve Sheldon | May 16, 2008 10:57 AM

This is a manufactured issue and time- wasting distraction.

You need to treat your content and audience with respect, the same as you'd apply to the WaPo print version. This content never would have been printed.

Posted by: Kairos | May 16, 2008 10:57 AM

Ms Friefeld, this piece belongs in The Onion. Maybe you should explore a career in satire.

Posted by: ozzinny | May 16, 2008 10:58 AM

If only you could get paid to mess around with Youtube all day long. That would be a dream job! But very competitive, I think. You probably couldn't just waltz into the Washington Post and land that kind of job. You'd have to be really, really good at it.


Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 11:06 AM

Vile

Posted by: Polaris | May 16, 2008 11:08 AM

Emily must be an intern...

Posted by: gn | May 16, 2008 11:24 AM

Is this a joke?! Why is this a news story? Obama forgot people applauded, so what?

Posted by: Leslie | May 16, 2008 11:25 AM

Please make the stupid stop Emily. It hurts.

Posted by: Josh | May 16, 2008 11:26 AM

I have to assume you meant this to be funny, because it is nothing if not laughable.

Posted by: TomC | May 16, 2008 11:38 AM

Desperation is your name.

Posted by: Media Browski | May 16, 2008 11:46 AM

So Emily, when are you going to report the news?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 11:53 AM

Now the media is paying more attention to Obama's flip flops after spending endless effort to downgrade sen. Clinton about her careless remark on the Bosnia trip.
I am beginning to doubt about the so call magic number of delegate count 2025 to become the Dem. party nominee. This number is based on that the Florida and Michigan voters are excluded from counting, this is deadly wrong !

Posted by: austiny | May 16, 2008 11:57 AM

Yo, Emily, no.

Posted by: Karen Crosy | May 16, 2008 12:00 PM

Teh stoopid...it burns!!!

Posted by: Nazgul35 | May 16, 2008 12:02 PM

pretty stupid article

Posted by: smartinsen | May 16, 2008 12:03 PM

um, Emily honey, would like me to send you a newspaper so you could see what some of the other journalists write about? Maybe that would help.


Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 12:05 PM

I realize I'm piling on here, but this was just eye-rollingly stupid work. If anyone wonders why a lot of folks feel that the mainstream media and the Post have no real standards left, this article is a nice little case study in stupid.

Now, I haven't studied enough of this particular 'journalists' work to know if she is a partisan hack looking to create a mini-controversy and criticize both Democratic candidates, or just an incompetent looking to manufacture a 'fun' story. Either way, I'm not impressed.

Posted by: Fides | May 16, 2008 12:07 PM

Yes. Make him pay, those 5 people clapping undermines his whole argument. It's so very similar to forgetting bullets whizzing by your head. So very similar.
Idiot.

Posted by: furtg | May 16, 2008 12:17 PM

Maybe the Post can settle this once and for all by hiring a forensic audio expert to count the number of clappers. Hire a crack investigative journo team to locate and interview the alleged clappers, then have George Will, Howie Kurtz, Chuck Krauthammer and Fred Hiatt publish a week of editorials declaring Obama dishonist, vapid and ultra-liberal.

Arlen Specter can then hold Senate hearings --right after he's done investigating the New England Patriots' video-taping habits...

Posted by: Carl Campos | May 16, 2008 12:20 PM

Emily,
Please explain to us why this article is worthy of the Washington Post and the readers' time?

Posted by: Leslie | May 16, 2008 12:20 PM

Hey, I have an idea. Maybe this post would work better as a PowerPoint presentation. And you could embed the video. And add flashing text! Now THAT would be cool. Or make it something that I could download onto my cellphone. That would be awesome.

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 12:26 PM

The stupid...it burns...

What a non-issue. Stupid press and their "gotcha" moments.

Posted by: Shazam | May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

Dear Ms. Freifeld:

Let me join the many others who have let you know how inane your point is.

Posted by: coffeequeen | May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

ok, dearie....I get that you're probably new to this...but a word of advice. Shut the f*ck up with your high school rumouring and invention of fake boring "controversy". If you want to be a reporter, then report. If you want to be a writer, then write. Think. Be brave. The world is quite literally at stake these days and this is what you give us?

Your keyboard must look up at you and try to resist.

We have enough addled minds. Be important and treat your craft like it's important. You can be a good writer...or a really, really bad one. Pick the first and stop this nonsnese and schlock.

Posted by: nigelallistair | May 16, 2008 12:32 PM

Please make the stupid stop.
Please.
You're hurting America.

Just Stop.


This kind of mindless, picayune, manufactured controversy is a pathetic waste and misuse of the power of the press.

The room was silent when Senator Obama chided the US automakers (i.e. Detroit) for making huge, low fuel-mileage cars. The room was silent when he chided Detroit for spending money on lobbyists fighting raising CAFE standards when import manufacturers were investing in higher fuel efficiency. The room was silent when he chided Detroit for grossly overpaid senior executives when their companies are losing billions of dollars.

Was there some applause? Yes. A little.
What was Senator Obama's point when speaking in Indianapolis? That his proposals for higher fuel efiiciency standards was not well received by the Detroit Economic Club, which is in essence the senior management of the US auto industry.
Did he use a bit of exageration? A little.
Does this exageration make a difference in the substance of his proposals he made in Detroit, or in his address in Indianapolis? No.

His point in Indianapolis was that the Detroit auto executives gave him a cool reception (silence) when he called them a bunch of greedy idiots who were more interested in their own bonuses than the environment, the economy, or the necessity to design and build great cars that are incredibly fuel efficient. (I paraphrased there. I hope this doesn't start a flame war against me...)

Grow up Emily.

This ant-hill you try to make into a mountain is ridiculous.


As for all the Obama bashers and Hillary bashers and McCain bashers I have a question. What do you think of his proposals to raise the CAFE standards 4% a year? What do you think of his other energy proposals?

Posted by: cynical Jim | May 16, 2008 12:50 PM

A note to the WAPO and Emily Freifeld. We don't care. And the more you pull crap like this the less we will read you.

Posted by: Bob | May 16, 2008 12:52 PM

Oh... I almost forgot.

It's inane, worthless drivel like this that finally got me to cancel my subscription to the Post.

Posted by: cynical Jim | May 16, 2008 12:53 PM

Hmmm....
I was really mesmerized at the part about being shot at.... oops, wrong politician.

Posted by: Merican | May 16, 2008 1:05 PM

What? No reports of cats stuck in trees today? I guess this will do.

Posted by: osteoclast | May 16, 2008 1:07 PM

Hello All -- thank you for your, um, robust response to our post on this topic. We have now written a follow up post that we invite you to read and comment on.

Please let us take a moment to remind you that this blog discusses the USE of video for political purposes. What we are attempting to analyze is the political impact certain videos -- and controversies surrounding them -- will have on the 2008 campaign.

If we leave out some crucial context -- we appreciate your criticism. But personal attacks devoid of any reasonable or factual argument do not help us become better reporters, nor do they have any sort of positive impact on public discourse.

Further, we all should remember that the voters will decide the final fate of all ideas, arguments and candidates. We are trying to point out which ideas, arguments, and candidates are moving to the fore of the political debate.

It is your job to make judgments about their merits and to engage us in a conversation about the facts we present. By and large you do a good job of this. You are tough and you help us sort through all of the static.

But sometimes you don't help us -- or yourselves, your candidates, your causes -- at all. The impact that you will have is up to you. We believe that well reasoned debate is the best approach.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/05/fair_to_compare.html

Posted by: washingtonpost.com editors | May 16, 2008 1:09 PM

It looks like the WAPO editors are trying to do some damage control.

Personally, I'd give it up -- this was shoddy journalism at best. Please give your "reporter" further education about reporting standards.

Posted by: Chup | May 16, 2008 1:17 PM

Thanks for the advice, Chup. We can all always improve. There is always more to learn. There is always more information to consider. That is why we like to hear from all of you -- most of the time.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 1:20 PM

You're saying that because Obama told people at the J-J dinner that "the room was quiet" when he proposed better fuel efficiency standards and, actually, the room wasn't quiet, he should clarify his comment? Are you kidding me? What a joke. Are you a reporter? Try doing some work on your own. This isn't a story. It's a distraction and something that is so completely irrelevent to any topic in this race. Stop. Please.

Start covering the contents of his proposed efficiency standards.

Posted by: teo | May 16, 2008 1:21 PM

No, Teo, we are not saying Obama should do anything. We were asking if YOU thought he should. We were pointing out that this would be used against him in the campaign. That is the kind of political analysis we do on this particular blog. There are reporters at the Post that HAVE covered his proposals on fuel efficiency. And if you have ideas about Obama's policies please share them with the group.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 1:27 PM

Dear washingtonpost.com Editors:

Thank you for the sanctimonious instruct as to how is it our "job", as readers, to engage your article in some way you'd prefer. We love being told that we're not being proper participants.

This article is nothing but a study in Fox News' "Some people say..." brand of reporting. It is NOT legitimate reporting, writing or jourmalism. It is invention. You have no obligation to present as legitimate any subject matter, drivel or crap that someone on YouTube says deserves it. Do you next ask if we think HIllary should address the accusations that she had Vince Foster murdered? No. Because that's garbae and so is this.

"So people say" you should stop asking your readers to legitimize garbage just because your news cylce has grown shorter, your budgets smaller and your standards lower.

Our job is to say whatever the heck we like on an open forum that you yourself opened. Stop being whiney and learn a thing or two.

"our job", indeed.

Posted by: nigelallistair | May 16, 2008 1:39 PM

really.

Posted by: stupid story is stupid | May 16, 2008 1:43 PM

"Washingtonpost.com Editors" is a little vague. Do your bosses know you've posted these responses? I find it hard to believe that such nonsense would be approved by the top editors at Washingtonpost.com. And if it is, that's indeed very telling.


Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 1:44 PM

I thought I was reading the Onion. Is this story for real? Does Ms. Freifeld actually have a job at a serious newspaper or is she some high school intern who won a contest to write a column. I guarantee you if bullets were flying over my head I'd remember it much more clearly then the reception I received at one of thousand of speeches I gave. News please not this garbage.

Posted by: bebop | May 16, 2008 1:58 PM

please screen comments for racially derogatory references before you post them.

Posted by: rod | May 16, 2008 2:08 PM

Wow.

WaPo editors, at the top of this column it says "the 2008 Election on Video." How about some relevant video? How about video of John McCAin advocating talking to Hamas in 2006? How about video of John McCain saying that he's not using his wife's wealth in his campaign?

How about some health care coverage? How about the massive military operation in Mosul right now?

Posted by: Dollared | May 16, 2008 2:28 PM

Thank you for proving yet again that cancelling my subscription to the Washington Post was an excellent decision.

Posted by: anakcu | May 16, 2008 2:58 PM

much ado about nothing.

Didn't applaud, nobody applauded, not many applauded, not everyone applauded, some didn't applaud... a few applauded, few applauded... what the hell is the issue here?

This is such weak opinion journalism that the Post should be embarrassed.
Get some thoughtful high school students on it, they could do better.

Posted by: dbrooks | May 16, 2008 3:11 PM

I have to agree with many of the commenters: this is one of the dumbest articles about total triviality I've ever seen in a major newspaper. My reaction: "Are you kidding?! Is this the BEST you can come up with?"

Posted by: David Studhalter | May 16, 2008 3:25 PM

this doesn't matter, it's being taken out of context. it doesn't even matter that he says he has been in 57 states in the USA, 1 more to go. he's still a very eloquent speaker, is he not> besides, unlike mccain, who was born on a military base, and hillary, who was born outside of chicago, obama was born in a manger with the star of bethlehem shining above.

Posted by: obama is lord | May 16, 2008 3:32 PM

Wow. How is this even relevant to anything? This is the most trivial piece of news reporting I've ever seen.

Posted by: Korey | May 16, 2008 3:42 PM

Does this mean that Obama may have to account for the fact that people like him more than he thinks they do?

Posted by: Peter | May 16, 2008 3:50 PM

i don't like him at all.

Posted by: greg | May 16, 2008 3:52 PM

In the time of King Ike, after Barack Husein Obama was born in Honolulu of Hawaii, wise terrorists from the East came to Honolulu, asking, Where is the child who has been born king of the Liberals? For we observed his star at its rising [or, 'in the East'], and have come to pay him homage. When King Ike heard this, he was frightened, and all Republicans with him; and calling together all the chief spies and scribes of the police, he inquired of them where the great Liberal Messiah Barack Hussein was to be born, for they knew that this savior was ordained by the Holiest of Holies to save the world from AIDS and hurricanes and energy crisis and racism and wars and unfair business dealings and discrimination and anger and fear and hatred and all other evils. Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Obama Child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.

Posted by: Obama is Lord | May 16, 2008 4:09 PM

You want him to clarify what exactly? He didn't lie on the important issue which is that he said something potentially unpopular. You want him to clarify whether people clapped or not? Please. a

Posted by: abrxas | May 16, 2008 5:26 PM

sorry abrxas

you misunderstand the underhanded tactic being empolyed by this little twit

she doesn't want Obama to clarify anything. such a position would reveal the lack of intelligence and lack of perspective that underlies this article

instead of just making an indefensible statement that would destroy any chance of a journalism carrear, the author of this particular tripe has decided to ask YOU if you think Obama should clarify his comments

this small act of sophistry allows the author to place all of the blame for focusing on trivial and minuet blather on the YOU, the reader
see how that works ???

the author doesn't think this, but it important to find out what YOU think

never mind that the issue is so stupid as to be beyond ordinary conversation

cuz YOU might want to discuss this

not that the author thinks you should, or anything, but if you want to ...

sophistry, its a word, you could look it up

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 6:12 PM

Emily Sweetie,

Barack Obama need not clarify anything. His perception of the event is correct. It is your research that is poor and faulty. You should have sought the original video instead of using a spliced and doctored one produced by Republicans.

I am just wondering, do you consider yourself an objective journalist? I will let everyone to judge for himself or herself -- here is the complete speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g

And here are commentaries written at the time the speech was delivered: (1) By Newsweek:http://www.newsweek.com/id/34740

(2) By Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277013,00.html

Having seen the videos and read through both articles, both critical of Obama, I think he is right and you are wrong.

Posted by: John Paul Telhomme | May 16, 2008 8:26 PM

This is actually a rare moment and readers should savor in it awe. This article lets us glimpse a primordial fragment hurtling through the void from the original Big Bang of Stupidity.

Posted by: IceNine | May 16, 2008 8:59 PM

This is actually a rare moment and readers should savor in it awe. This article lets us glimpse a primordial fragment hurtling through the void from the original Big Bang of Stupidity.

Posted by: IceNine | May 16, 2008 9:01 PM

Sorry for the double post. The engine was slow on the uptake, so I punched it in again.

Posted by: IceNine | May 16, 2008 9:04 PM

"I think every Obama supporter should ask and answer this question:

Which version of the Rev Wright response do you believe?

1. I never was in the pews on 'those' days at the church. What controversial comments?

2. I was there and I was aware of the controversial comments, but I can no more disown Rev Wright than I could my white grandmother.

3. Rev Wright does not know me and I do not know him. I hereby denounce, divorce and annul my relationship with him, just not the church with the new pastor.

All within three weeks, in fact, which excuse do you believe, Week one, two or three.

And yeah, I know that legitimate criticism can be called racist.

Posted by: thelaw | May 15, 2008 6:42 PM"

If you're going to post what you allege are actual (and not paraphrased) statements made by someone, please post with links to verify content, context, and timing.

Otherwise it looks like you're asking us to do what the Bush Administration has demanded we do for the past 7+ years: "Just trust us". That turned out well.

Posted by: Sander | May 16, 2008 9:30 PM

Hey, the Tuzla "scandal" wasn't a scandal, why should be any different? "Slight rhetorical exaggeration" would seem to be the case in both. "Nobody clapped" means "there wasn't enthusiastic response."

The Cult of the Distorted Offhand Remark should have their voting (and reporting) privileges stripped from them.

Posted by: Jim H | May 16, 2008 10:06 PM

Jeez, if you hate Obama, just say you hate Obama. Don't put us through a silly exercise like this.

Clutching at straws, they are.

Posted by: Mark In Ohio | May 17, 2008 7:00 AM

The impact that you will have is up to you. We believe that well reasoned debate is the best approach.

Really.

"well reasoned" left the Post a long time ago.

Posted by: the joke is on te Wapo | May 17, 2008 1:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company