Obama’s Stagecraft Hits a New Low
The National Review Online is reporting that the Obama campaign approved the leak of a ‘private prayer’ in Jerasalem, in Obama’s Prayerful Stagecraft.
What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign. Maariv, the second most popular newspaper in Israel, was roundly criticized for publishing the note Obama left in the Kotel. But now a Maariv spokesperson says that publication of the note was pre-approved for international publication by the Obama campaign, leading to the conclusion that the “private” prayer was intentionally leaked for public consumption
The Obama campaign’s showmanship is in large part what has propelled Senator Obama to his party’s nomination. However, in this case his showmanship has revealed him as disrespectful and shallow. This is a sacred location and tradition for many people that Senator Obama just exploited for votes. A little respect for other people’s faith, culture, and traditions should be a no-brainer for someone who likes promote himself as a citizen of the world.
Obama’s dubious Western Wall Prayergate from Checkpoint Jerusalem adds that the paper disagrees that the prayer was staged. However, there has been no retraction by National Review that a source leaked that this prayer was a staged.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Obama, Politics | Tagged: leaked prayer, Jerasalem, faith, religion, stagecraft, leak
[...] Obama’s Stagecraft Hits a New Low [...]
Global norms more important than sovereign nations???…
The 2008 Presidential election may seem like it all about Barack Obama; however, he can’t seem to close the deal. With all his followers, with all his soring speeches, with all the hoopla surrounding his world trip — he still can’t break away from …
Obama is a fraud all the way around, and he is not qualified to be president. Everything he does is staged and all about the photo op. I mean why would a CANDIDATE for President go making political speeches to people who can’t vote for him, even going so far as to lure them in with a concert! He talked to leaders about his plans when he hasn’t even been elected. The most telling part of his whole trip was the fact that he couldn’t be bothered to stop and see our injured troops. This man is as egotistical as it gets!
Why do you say this is a “new low.” Is there any way Obama could have prevented the publication of the prayer?
It’s not as if it was released as a press release — though Republicans have done that in the past (probably a few Democrats, too).
This is a complaint of zero substance. Get over it.
It is a new low (not a surprising one from him though). Obamas campaign acted like the victim when the prayer Obama wrote was published. How can any wrong have been done to you when you or your campaign was the one to release it. Kind of reminds me of the person who went into look at Obamas passport. He sure did cry and make a huge production about it until it was found out that both Hillary and McCain were also violated. Bottom line it is about Obama and only Obama.
You tell everyone to get over it. This goes right down to a persons character. I don’t know how you pick a President but me sir, I pick someone with charcter, good judgement, their platform, and their resume (voting record).
Ed - If the prayer was simply picked up a journalist who then published it, you’d hear no complaint from me. The problem is that the report is saying the prayer itself along with the way the reporter received the prayer was staged by the Obama campaign. That’s a sacred place and a sacred ritual for millions of people, and for it to be used as a compaign prop is discraceful.
There is no claim anywhere that the campaign released. To cover its tail, the newspaper said “preapproved for release” — but this is a campaign. Obama’s campaign wouldn’t give such a scoop to a foreign newspaper, and under the rules of the campaign planes and the Congressional trips, such a release would have gone to the pool covering the Senate trip, or to the pool covering the campaign — or to both, if campaign.
By the way, this part of the trip should have been under the auspices of Congress — so the claim that the campaign “pre-approved it” suggests that whoever invented the story for the Israeli newspaper didn’t know the rules.
That also goes to my point about what probably happened: The newspaper got the piece, and perhaps they checked with Obama’s campaign on the accuracy of it. At that point, how can the campaign have any control over publication? They can’t. When I’ve been in that position in the past, I confirm that the material being held by the paper is what they claim (or I tell them it’s not, if it’s not). Confirming that it was Obama’s actual prayer is a lot different from “pre-approval.” In any case, this was not a campaign press release in any form.
So if you’re going to use this as a measure of character, you’ll have to look at the substance of the prayer. If you’re picking someone with good character, the prayer is genuine, according to the paper.
And, why shouldn’t anyone complain about illegal use of passport information by George Bush’s State Department? It’s a crime. It was abusive. That others were abused is not an excuse in any fashion.
I think you’re looking for molehills, lacking mountains. So, yes, get informed, and get over it. Character is also demonstrated when people imagine sins of a candidate that did not occur, and when they make mountains out of irrelevancies.
New low? Maybe for this blog. Not for Obama, not a low at all.
You’re concluding the prayer was released. I doubt you’ve ever worked a campaign of any type, especially a national campaign, but that’s just not how things work. I’ve been unable to find any evidence that the campaign was even along on the Israel part of the trip (ethics rules prevent campaign staff traveling on Congressional business).
You ascribe evil intent where it would be great stretch, even had the campaign released it. You ascribe actions that are not in evidence, and don’t make sense. And you read into a response from a foreign newspaper what is not likely, and what must be taken with a grain of salt, considering that the paper has an interest in covering its tail.
Oh, and by the way, Ma’ariv’s official statement was that they did not seek, nor did they get, permission to publish. We’ve been hoaxed. (See the Volokh Conspiracy, with link to the Washington Post:
http://volokh.com/posts/1217622706.shtml )
Ed - You present a valid link, and I’ll add that to the footer of the story. The basis for the article is a report from National Review Online which says, “However, it now appears that Maariv had collaborated with the Obama campaign in getting the “private” prayer, with its “modest” supplicaton to the Lord, out to the public, buffing his Christian credentials and showing his “humility.”
You’re absolutely right that I don’t know about the commnications rules of campaigns. What I do know is that I didn’t write this piece when I saw it in blogs that I couldn’t verify as credible. However, National Review while conservative is still considered a respectable publication. If they are wrong about their facts then I withdraw my complaint, but I have yet to see a retraction. What your link shows is doubt. So noted.
BTW - I’m not a fan of the Bush administration, but I don’t see how that relates to the current topic.
I’d be astounded if NR retracted. Buckley’s dead, and so are ethics at that journal, so far as I’ve been able to determine.
One doesn’t have to be a fan of Bush, or a disliker of Bush, to recognize that Obama can complain about illegal actions by the State Department with his passport. That it happened to McCain and Clinton only shows that the corruption is more widespread than most people imagine. Someone has to speak up against wrong-doing.