CLICK HERE to go directly down the page to the "Trump Tracking Sources"
Note: This blog post is one of a series; it is designed to provide links to media organizations' pages that were created post-inauguration to track the day-to-day news of President Trump's talk and actions. Those blog posts listed below, other than the first ("General Trump Resources"), are individual blog posts dealing with a range of Trump-related issues (in reverse chronological order).
General Trump Resources: "Tracking Trump" (with links to a series of 10 weekly pages of links to items regarding the period from November 9, 2016 through January 17, 2017 (the President-elect period of Donald Trump's transition to the inauguration, January 20, 2017, and the presidency)
General Trump Resources: "Resources for Trump Watchers," February 11, 2017
"What Trump Needs to Know About Libel," May 1, 2017
"Collusion, Treason, Trump and Putin," April 5, 2017
"Who Are We?" January 31, 2017
"Republicans Need To Get Their Party Back From Trump," October 20, 2016 [published as column by Iowa City Press-Citizen]
"Law, Social Norms and Trump," October 2, 2016
"Donald Trump's Barrel of Squirrels," September 25, 2016
"Trump Might Not Be Blundering in Race," September 9, 2016 [published as a column by Iowa City Press-Citizen]
"Maybe This Explains Trump," August 15, 2016
"When Words Can Kill," August 10, 2016
"Why Trump May Win," July 25, 2016
"What Putin Can Teach Rastetter," May 9, 2016 [published as a column by The Daily Iowan]
Introduction: Why Resources for Trump Tracking?
How are Donald Trump's presidential years like the Afghanistan War?
We've been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001. We're still there -- one of America's longest, continuous wars. The Afghanistan War was initially our response to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York City. Why Afghanistan? For the same reason the fellow in the story who had lost a quarter was looking for it a block from where he'd dropped it. As he explained, "The light is better here." The 9/11 attack was primarily planned, funded, and executed by Saudis. Afghanistan had better light.
News from Afghanistan continues to dribble out: an attack on an American base here, our responsibility for civilian casualties there. But 14 years of details are forgotten, if not the next day, certainly by the next month. The only way to even try to make sense out of it is to wait for a book to weave those details into a storyl; or, at a minimum, read through a month or two's worth of all known details.
So it is with our new president. There are more details regarding what he's done and failed to do than we can even recall, let alone make sense out of. Indeed, given the Administration's penchant for secrecy and lack of transparency, and the President's ability to come up with multiple tweets and headlines a day to control the evening news and next day's papers, the media have done an extraordinary job bringing the audience as many of the details as they have.
The sources linked from this blog post are for those who, for whatever reasons, want to see the whole picture. They see the times we are living through as historically unique and potentially dangerous.
(1) There are concerns about Trump's personality and style, such as his attitudes, speech, and behavior regarding women. They see his troubling narcissistic personality traits, ease of factual misrepresentations, tendency to strike out against anyone not sufficiently admiring (including our global allies).
(2) There are concerns about his substantive policies regarding such things as immigration, healthcare, and the environment.
(3) But of all these concerns, and more, those that are of greatest importance are those that go to the heart of the ability of a self-correcting democracy to function: his disregard of centuries of American constitutional principles, legislation, and norms regarding the behavior of the president -- the authoritarian's technique of diminishing the people's regard for the media and judiciary; his almost total lack of education and experience regarding the role of government at any level, from local to NATO (and apparent disinterest in learning); his unwillingness to reveal his tax returns or establish a legitimate blind trust; his appointment of cabinet officers with similar lack of understanding and experience.
For those who, for these reasons, do believe they have a responsibility to keep a continuous eye on what Trump is doing, someone needs to bring the daily facts together for us.
Following the election, from November 9, 2016 to January 20, 2017, I decided that one of those someones would be me -- at least for the days of President-elect Trump. It's called "Tracking Trump", a blog post covering weeks one and two, to which are linked four additional "pages" for weeks 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-10 -- organized under topics such as "international," "appointments," and "temperament."
This took a substantial amount of "opportunity time" away from other high-priority tasks which had to be postponed. So I decided to make President-elect Trump's weeks the finite period of time to be covered by my own efforts, and look for other sources of comparable efforts regarding President Trump's first 100 days -- or four years. With credit to Julie Johnson for her early efforts at ferreting out most of these sources, here are some you may find useful. I'd welcome your suggestions of more to add. And remember, it's never been more important to support the efforts of these media sources with our subscriptions!
Trump Tracking Sources
New York Times, Politics
New York Times, "First 100 Days Briefing." Use https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html (substituting for 2017/02/09 the date desired) or search on "First 100 Days Briefing" on the Times' opening page search field.
Washington Post, Politics
Washington Post, Politics, White House
Lawfare Blog (excellent source for associated legal issues discussion)
The Guardian: "The First 100 Days of Trump; Tracking the 45th President of the United States, One Day at a Time"
ProPublica, "The Trump Administration" (November 18, 2016-present)
New York Magazine, Daily Intelligencer: Eric Levitz, "All the Terrifying Things That Donald Trump Did Lately,"
Euronews: "This is What Trump Has Done So Far"
Politico: "Forty Five: A Daily Diary of the Trump Presidency"
Politico: "Handicapping Trump’s first 100 days; Trump’s campaign promises have run into trouble with his own party — even his own Cabinet members — before he even takes the oath of office," January 20, 2017
YAHOO! Style: Natalie Gontchrova, "Everything That's Happened Since Trump Took Office,"
Campaign Promises, Executive Orders and Tweets
Ray Giles' "Trump Campaign Promises Monitor"
USA TODAY: "On Politics: President Trump's executive actions: The complete list so far"
Los Angeles Times: "Here's everything Donald Trump has tweeted since he became president"
"Russia: Trump & His Team's Ties to Russia," Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif. 15th Dist.)
# # #
July 5, 2009, 11:00 a.m.
Post Publisher Blind to Journalism Ethics, Conflict
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
UPDATE (N.J., July 11, 2009): Having been caught in a disastrous ethical blunder, one can at least give the Post credit for having an ombudsperson and permitting him to investigate and reveal in a lengthy story the details of what happened, how and why. Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, "A Sponsorship Scandal at The Post," Washington Post, July 12, 2009.
[What follows is the blog entry as it appeared on July 5:]
Newspapers, and other media seeped in the responsibility and ethics of true journalists, have long agonized over their inherent conflicts of interest.
For starters, big media is big business; any stories or editorials that seem to side with business (over, say, unions or consumers) are open to the interpretation they are merely self-serving.
A major share of their income is provided by other big businesses in the form of advertising. If a positive story runs about a major advertiser, or a negative story is killed, it raises a question as to whether the special treatment was, in effect, purchased.
A reporter who covers a regular beat (such as the State Department, or the auto industry) develops contacts and relationships that can develop into social relationships and friendships. At a minimum, really tough, critical "investigative journalism" may result in those essential sources drying up.
To respond to the conflicts they can do something about, newspapers may preclude reporters from doing stories about organizations (or political parties or candidates) to which they belong, or with which they are identified. Family relationships can also come into play.
I recall when papers (including the Post if my memory's correct) would insist on paying reporters' travel and other expenses when covering, for example, the networks' events in Hollywood promoting their "new fall season" -- notwithstanding the organizations' more than willingness to pay to get the reporters there.
It is against this background that the Washington Post new (17 months in office) CEO stunned the journalism world last week with Politico's report that she was overtly selling to corporate special interests and their lobbyists the opportunity to mingle with the elected and appointed officials controlling their destiny. (These are people the Post's powerful CEO could expect to respond favorably to an invitation to dinner.) She would also supply the Post reporters writing the stories on which these companies' fortunes would often turn. And the setting would be, where else, her own private dining room at home.
To provide this kind of access, in this kind of setting, and with reporters present, no less, does the Washington lobbyists -- who sell the same service -- one better. And considering the fact they charge by the millions of dollars, she was essentially giving away these benefits -- at $25,000 per dinner, or $250,000 per series.
Here's how the mess was described by the normally sympathetic New York Times:
Katharine Weymouth, the relatively new publisher of The Washington Post, is a lawyer who worked for the company for 12 years and was educated at the Harvard School of Business, so she is hardly a naïf in running a business.
But she has never worked in a newsroom, a gap in her résumé that may have contributed to her current problems.
As first reported in Politico, The Washington Post had sent out a brochure offering sponsorships — a fee of $25,000 for one, or $250,000 for an entire series — for an exclusive “Washington Post salon” at Ms. Weymouth’s home in which officials from Congress and the administration, lobbyists and, yes, the paper’s own reporters could have a quiet, off-the-record dinner, discussions to be led by Marcus Brauchli, the newspaper’s editor. Theoretically, you can’t buy Washington Post reporters, but you can rent them.
I guess it sounded like a good idea at the time. Access, and its very close cousin, influence, define the Beltway. Millions of dollars are spent on having the right lobbyists, flacks and lawyers so that you can end up in a room with people who control your destiny. . . .
Initially, the salon controversy . . . was explained away as the unfortunate result of an unvetted brochure sent out by an overzealous marketing employee . . ..
But . . . at least two of the invitations to political participants . . . came from the personal e-mail address of Ms. Weymouth. Mr. Brauchli [the Post Editor] insisted that he had not realized the full implications of the events even though [the marketing employee] told The Post’s ombudsman that the plan was “well developed with the newsroom.”
The absence of a credible explanation, compounded a grievous wound . . ..
(The fact that it was Politico that broke this story only added to the sting. . . . In the increasingly heated race between the mainstream media and newer, digitally enabled ones, much of the remaining competitive edge for legacy media derives from a perception that they adhere to more rigorous publishing standards. Oops.) . . .
Mr. Brauchli['s] . . . explanation for the salon mess — I planned to attend but did not understand exactly what the party was — has not helped. . . .
Ms. Weymouth’s initial explanation for the salon fiasco, also broke another Washington Post tradition: those who are handed the sword generally fall on it when trouble comes. . . .
Ms. Weymouth’s excuse — that the salon brochure “completely misrepresented what we were trying to do” didn’t track with many reporters . . ..
“Oh really? Then what were they trying to do?” said one reporter . . ..
“The people I know in the newsroom are still waiting for a lot better answer to what the goal was here, what was really happening with this idea, and how it got so far along without raising red flags,” Mr. Stuever added.
The reporters . . . are also staring down the prospect of serving as a punch line in Beltway circles for many years to come. The president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has already obliged by wondering aloud at a news conference whether he could afford to take a question from Michael Shear, a Post reporter.
Funny stuff, unless you are the reporter with your hand up. . . .
David Carr, "A Publisher Stumbles Publicly at the Post," New York Times, July 4, 2009, p. B1.
Well, this morning Ms. Weymouth had her turn -- and blew it. There are many lessons of journalism she has yet to learn -- at least this one of which she should have picked up at the Harvard Business School even if she had no experience with journalism.
There are always two stories following a public relations disaster. One is what was done -- in this case, creating a self-destructive conflict of interest by selling influence, and journalistic integrity, as a newspaper (and for a pittance).
The second story is how you handle it once you get caught. The Washington subway system, Metro, is currently dealing with this problem. So is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford with his "business" (monkey and otherwise) in Argentina. So is Governor Sarah Palin with her precipitous resignation.
And so was Katharine Weymouth this morning.
As the White House occupants seem to illustrate at least once every new Administration, it's a lesson seemingly hard to learn.
In fairness, here is a reproduction of her letter, in full, with no editing by me:
Dear Reader:
I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity. A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem. Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the organization, down. The Washington Post remains committed, now and always, to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Nothing is more important to us than that, and nothing will shake that commitment.
So what happened? Like other media companies, The Post hosts conferences and live events that bring together journalists, government officials and other leaders for discussions of important topics. These events make news and inform their audiences. We had planned to extend this business to include smaller gatherings, a practice that has become common at other media companies.
From the outset, we laid down firm parameters to ensure that these events would be consistent with The Post's values. If the events were to be sponsored by other companies, everything would be at arm's length -- sponsors would have no control over the content of the discussions, and no special access to our journalists.
If our reporters were to participate, there would be no limits on what they could ask. They would have full access to participants and be able to use any information or ideas to further their knowledge and understanding of any issues under discussion. They would not be asked to invite other participants and would serve only as moderators.
When the flier promoting our first planned event to potential sponsors was released, it overstepped all these lines. Neither I nor anyone in our news department would have approved any event such as the flier described.
We have canceled the planned dinner. While I do believe there is a legitimate way to hold such events, to the extent that we hold events in the future, large or small, we will review the guidelines for them with The Post's top editors and make sure those guidelines are strictly followed. Further, any conferences or similar events The Post sponsors will be on the record.
We all make mistakes and hope to be forgiven for them. I apologize to our readers for the mistakes I made in this case.
We remain committed to you, our readers. We remain committed to the highest standards of integrity. And while we will continue to pursue new lines of business, we will never allow those new avenues to compromise our integrity.
In the meantime, I hope that we can continue to count you as a reader while we promise to continue to bring you the news as it develops, unbiased and with the best reporting and editing we can offer.
Yours respectfully,
Katharine Weymouth
Publisher and CEO, The Washington Post
Katharine Weymouth, "A Letter to Our Readers" ["a planned new venture that went off track"], Washington Post, July 5, 2009.
It sort of sounds like one of those non-apology apologies, "I'm sorry if any of you feel bad about what I did -- and besides, I didn't really do it anyway."
On the one hand she says, "the flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors . . . Neither I nor anyone in our news department would have approved any event such as the flier described," and on the other hand she asks to be "forgiven . . . for the mistakes I made in this case."
If this was all, really, somebody else's fault just what, exactly, were "the mistakes [she] made in this case"?
She includes a variation on the child's plea, "but other mommies let their boys do it": "Like other media companies, The Post hosts conferences . . .. We had planned to extend this business ["business"!?] to include smaller gatherings, a practice that has become common at other media companies."
She says "Neither I nor anyone in our news department would have approved any event such as the flier described," and yet this was an event she had agreed to hold in her home for which she was the hostess and for which the Editor of the paper had agreed to be the discussion leader?
There's no way she can get out of this one. One possibility is that she full well knew what the paper was about to do -- with a private dinner at her home to which members of Congress were invited with emails from her personal account, and for which special interests would pay the paper between $25,000 and $250,000 -- and oversaw every detail (as Lyndon Johnson continued to do as president), including the flier, invitation list, seating arrangement and menu.
The other possibility is that she is so inattentive as CEO that a policy and event of this precedent-breaking magnitude, requiring her personal involvement, could go on below her radar -- either because she has precisely defined what should, and should not, be brought to her attention by others (and this was in the category of things not worthy of her attention), or because it was brought to her attention and she simply didn't bother to inform herself about the details.
Neither is a very comforting hypothesis for the "Dear Readers" to whom she wrote.
______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
February 23, 2008, 8:00 p.m.
Whether it's inspecting beef or regulating broadcasters, few government agencies have anything like the numbers of staff members they would need to do the jobs Congress hands them.
So it was when I was a commissioner at the FCC.
On one occasion it got so bad that we didn't have enough secretaries to type up (this was before computers) the confidential staff memos to the commissioners regarding pending cases and proposed rules.
The memos arrived on time anyway. "How were you able to do this?" I asked. I was informed the lawyers practicing before the agency had offered their firm's secretaries to do the typing of these confidential documents for us -- documents regarding their clients' interests!
Given the cozy relationship between the regulators and the regulated I can't say I was surprised this was done. But I was truly stunned to discover that no one could understand why I might think there was something wrong with doing so.
I was reminded of that experience this past week with the revelations regarding Senator John McCain's close ties to lobbyists.
Washington is awash with lobbyists. There are multiples more of them than there are elected officials. They swarm the halls of the House and Senate office buildings and the Capitol. The fill Washington's restaurants, and the fairways of its golf courses. Much of the multi-millions in "campaign contributions" passes through their hands on its way to insuring that virtually all who want to be re-elected for life will be. And these lobbyists are usually in the company of elected and appointed officials and their top staff aides.
So I was not surprised that McCain -- in spite of his leadership in campaign finance and lobbying reform efforts -- was often in the company of lobbyists.
What surprised me was his seeming blindness to the matter of appearances.
Indeed, that was the real story in the much-maligned New York Times report -- as its headline suggested. Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk," New York Times, February 21, 2008.
In spite of the Time's critics' efforts to turn this into a "politics makes strange bedfellows" story about his friendship with an attractive female lobbyist, to the extent the possibility of an "affair" with a younger woman was involved at all in the Times' story it was in the context of the concerns of protective staffers regarding appearances -- rather than their, or others', passing moral judgment on behavior that had in fact occurred.
These staff members were doing precisely what they should have been doing.
In fact, I wrote that responsibility into the job description of my chief of staff. He was obliged to be unflinchingly candid when watching and assessing my speech and actions -- dressing me down if necessary, anytime he heard stories, or observed behavior or language that he thought might be capable of being turned into a problem by our critics.
Based on the Times' story, it looks like that's what McCain's staffers were doing. They thought having an attractive female lobbyist, who represented clients with business before his committee, hanging around the office, telling those clients she had a special "in" with the Senator, traveling with him on her client's corporate jets, was problematical -- as much or more because of the conflict of interest such a friendship might be seen to create as for the possibility of rumors of an "affair."
For the record, my practice both as Maritime Administrator and FCC commissioner was to limit meetings with the representatives of regulated companies to my office. They were citizens; they were entitled to be heard. (Of course, so were those whose interests were at stake -- consumers, taxpayers -- those who couldn't even afford to organize, let alone pay for Washington representation. To the extent possible I sought out such citizens' groups as existed for their points of view as well.) But I thought the common practice of having meals with lobbyists, attending entertainment events, traveling together (especially on company planes), or playing in golf matches together was unseemly. I wanted to avoid even the appearance -- let alone the reality -- of a "friendship" entering into a decision.
My concern about such matters was not widely shared.
So from my perspective it was the Washington Post's story, almost more than that of the New York Times, that was the more significant. Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists," Washington Post, February 22, 2008, p. A1.
The Post details the extent to which McCain has surrounded himself, primarily at the top levels of his campaign, but also in his Senate office, with lobbyists -- present and former, paid and unpaid. (Obviously, someone being paid by a corporation who is, in fact, putting in their time on a candidate's campaign, can creates rather significant legal problems regarding campaign contribution regulations.)
The Post's story does not suggest, nor would I, that McCain's decisions as a Senator are affected by the presence of those who are helping him in his quest for the presidency (although the Times' story details some troubling instances of his interaction with the FCC on behalf of one of his woman friend's clients -- an interaction the FCC Chair apparently characterized as both very unusual and inappropriate). The Post does point out, however, that "McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton."
What I find troubling is what apparently troubled his staffers, the Times' reporters and headline writer ("For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk"). It is his seeming acceptance of the way Washington does business, it is his insensitivity to the possible reactions of those outside the beltway to such relationships, his belief that because he has sponsored campaign finance and ethics legislation that appearances simply don't matter when it comes to him (presumably he would add, "So long as he is not, personally, doing anything illegal"). It is a reflection on his good judgment.
From time to time I make reference to what I call the "sub-governments" that hold the real power in Washington. Here is one such speech excerpt:
Most kids learn about the three branches of government: "legislative" (Congress), "executive" (president) and "judicial" (courts). But Washington doesn't work through three branches. It works through the dozens of sub-governments . . ..
Sub-governments grow under rocks, away from the media's spotlight. They require an industry dominated by a few firms that grow rich with government help, whether through subsidies, price supports, tax breaks, government contracts, use of public lands, bailouts or tariffs.
A sub-government's membership includes a small, incestuous collection of one industry's corporate and trade association executives, their lawyers, lobbyists and publicists, its trade papers' journalists, congressional sub-committee members and staff, and the relevant agency's employees. They eat and play together, literally inter-marry, and protect each other."
Nicholas Johnson, "Challenges Facing Global Leadership: Refocusing the International Leadership Forum," La Jolla, California, April 27, 2002.
That's just the way it is. That's the way Washington works.
Like the Federal Communications Bar Association's secretaries typing up the FCC's confidential memoranda, I can't be surprised that thousands of persons in Washington naturally identify with the sub-government of which they are a part (rather than "the public interest," or even their own institution, such as Congress).
However, I can be deeply disappointed at what a statistically insignificant minority are able to see what is wrong with this picture.
# # #
February 10, 2008, 11:00 a.m.; February 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m. [Register posts new AP story], 1:30 p.m., 3:15 p.m.; February 12, 2008, 8:00 a.m., 11:45 a.m.; February 13, 2008, 11:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m.; February 14, 2008, 12:30 p.m.
Register Skips a (Presidential) Beat
Yesterday was a really big day for Senator Barack Obama. In one AP story it was called "his best night of the campaign." (All quoted stories are linked, below.)
The New York Times's page-one headline called it "convincing wins" in a story that began, "Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories . . . an impressive sweep . . . just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money . . .."
The Washington Post's page-one story headlined that "Obama Handily Wins" and began, "Sen. Barack Obama dominated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in presidential balloting . . . besting her by huge margins . . .."
The Gazette used an AP story that led, "Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses . . . , slicing into Sen. Hillary Clinton’s slender delegate lead . . .. The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign."
This morning's Register, by contrast, headlines this news "Obama, Clinton Fight in 3 States," puts the story on page 2, and leads with news of Senator McCain -- following which they note that Obama and Clinton "competed for convention delegates across three states" in a race that was "close and likely to get closer."
Spreading the Clinton campaign's usual pre-results spin (if Obama wins this one it was to be expected and doesn't mean anything; of course if we win it is a major upset showing the momentum is now going with us) the story notes "nearly half those casting ballots [in Louisiana] were black. As a group, African-Americans have overwhelmingly favored Obama . . .."
The story reports the merged (pledged and super) delegate count (in which Clinton has a slight edge) rather than the caucus and primary delegate count (in which Obama leads). It mentions that "people were turned away from a University of Maine [event where] Clinton spoke to a capacity crowd of about 1750 people" (with of course no mention of Obama's crowd of 21,000 at a Washington State event earlier in the week).
Morever, immediately under this page 2 placement, in the "Campaign News" sidebar, following the heading for "DEMOCRATS" is, immediately "Hillary Clinton" -- in bold. It goes on to quote her view "that she, not Barack Obama, is best positioned to beat [McCain]." Only later in that paragraph is there a quote from Senator Barak Obama, referred to as simply "Obama" at that point, and in regular font rather than bold, without a paragraph break, and thus something the reader's eye would not quickly catch.
I have no real problem with the Register deciding that its corporate, or ideological, or political, or public spirited interests or inclinations lean it in the direction of an editorial endorsement of Clinton over Obama. That's the right and choice of those who buy printers' ink by the barrel.
But I do think that running this AP story and "Campaign News" blub favoring Senator Clinton -- without more -- raises questions regarding the extent to which that editorial ink is bleeding over into the news pages.
Now the Register may respond that this was all that was available to it when the paper went to press. (The AP story it used ran about 5:00 p.m. CT Saturday.) To which I would respond with the following questions and comments:
1. When do you go to press with the up-to-date "news" for the first, "Section A," portion of your Sunday paper? Is there no way you could do that any later in the afternoon or evening?
2. If not, wouldn't it have been better -- knowing that the page-one news all across America (and the world, for that matter) this morning was going to be results in yesterday's Democratic contests -- to put a notice on page one indicating that you were aware of the importance of the results in the primaries and caucuses, but that your paper had to be printed before any results could be known?
3. Finally, since you have an online version of the paper, to which you often add news and updates before the next hard copy paper version is printed, why did you not post results -- and stories -- there once they were available? (Perhaps you have by now; but I couldn't find them when I looked this morning at the same time I was getting the stories from the Times, Post and Gazette).
[Feb. 11, 7:30 a.m.: The Register has an AP item on its Web site this morning that tells the story of Obama's impressive sweep of five events over the weekend: the Washington, Nebraska and Virgin Islands caucuses, to which he added the Maine caucus on Sunday, plus the primary in Louisiana -- all by substantial 2-to-1 or close to 3-to-1 margins over Clinton. Charles Babington, "Obama Basks in Crowds, Momentum," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 11, 2008, 7:47 a.m. ET. (Also noting that Obama's crowds are "several times larger" than those for Clinton, Obama's having won a Grammy as well (over Bill Clinton), and the shake-up in Clinton's top campaign staff.) [The link now [4:00 p.m.] takes you to a 4:46 p.m. ET rewrite of the Babington story.]
The addition of the Maine victory makes this an even bigger national/international story this morning than it was yesterday. I haven't yet seen a hard copy paper version of this morning's [Feb. 11] Des Moines Register, but if it still contains no mention of Obama's string of major victories during the prior 48 hours I think it has some explaining to do.
Feb. 11, 1:30 p.m.: Having now seen my hard copy Register for today I'm sad to report that the paper's choice of AP stories continues to leave it open to charges of (pro-Clinton) news (as distinguished from editorial) bias. Details later this afternoon.
3:15 p.m.: On p. A1 is Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Overhauls Campaign Leadership," Associated Press, with a cheery picture of Hillary Clinton. [A version of this story can be found as Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Replaces Campaign Manager," Associated Press/WTOPNews.com, February 11, 2008, 12:34 a.m. -- a version from which the Register 's version deletes from its lead: "engineering a shake-up in a presidential campaign struggling to overcome rival Sen. Barack Obama's financial and political strengths."]
Page A2 has the carry-over from the p. A1 story, and two additional Associated Press stories: Stephen Ohlemacher and Jim Kuhnhenn, "Clinton Leads With Insiders" [a version of this story can be found as, Stephen Ohlemacher and Jim Kuhnhenn, "Clinton Has Lead With Party Insiders," Associated Press/WTOPNews.com, February 10, 2008, 9:44 p.m.], and Pauline Arrillaga, "Obama's Appeal Among Hispanics Could Prove Critical; Polls Show It's Lagging, Whereas Hillary Clinton Has Solid Support From This Segment of Voters." [A version of the Arrillaga story -- with a much more balanced headline and a story from which the Register stripped all the balanced positives about Obama and Hispanics -- is available as Pauline Arrillaga, "Democratic candidate Barack Obama says 'Yes, We Can!' but Hispanic voters ask: Can he?," Associated Press/Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 10, 2008, 2:04 p.m.]
The only mention of Obama's extraordinary string of victories is a little boxed story on p. A2 with no by-line: "Maine Voters Hand Obama Another Victory." As the headline suggests it is, almost in its entirety, merely a very brief report from Maine. Thus, so far as I know the Register has yet to run a story regarding Obama's having bested Clinton, often by 2 or 3-to-one, in 5 straight contests during 48 hours -- contests in America's Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, South and Virgin Islands.
Feb. 12, 8:00 a.m. -- And the (Register's) beat (up on Obama) goes on: Haven't seen the hard copy yet, but The Gazette features the AP story pointing out how much better Obama does against McCain than does Clinton. The Register's online "national news" uses the AP story repeating the Clinton "expectations" spin, designed to diminish any Obama victories, while downplaying and burying the "Obama Beats McCain" story and presenting only the Clinton camp response to it. Beth Fouhy, "Obama Hopes to Rout Clinton in Primaries," February 12, 2008, 8:22 a.m. EST.
11:45 a.m.What the Register runs in its hard copy paper edition is a different AP story (90% of which deals with Clinton and McCain) on page 2: Kristin Jensen and Indira Lakshmanan, "Democrats Work Crowds Ahead of 3 Primaries Today," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 12, 2008, p. A2 -- along with a smiling picture of Senator Clinton trying to look her most charming, and an expressionless picture of Obama. (It's not available from the Register's online site, but is available here: Kristin Jensen and Indira Lakshmanan, "Clinton Woes Small Groups, Obama Rallies Crowds," Associate Press/Bloomberg.com, February 11, 2008.)
As the Bloomberg version reveals, not only did the Register's headline give the story an entirely different spin than Bloomberg, the Register also chose to omit from its version of the story paragraphs such as the following:
Obama held his first rally today at the Comcast Center arena at the University of Maryland's College Park campus. The arena, which seats more than 17,500 people, was packed with cheering Obama supporters. He plans a similar event at a stadium in Baltimore.
. . .
Weekend Contests
Obama bested Clinton in four states over the weekend, winning caucuses in Maine yesterday 60 percent to 40 percent and rolling up similar margins in caucuses in Nebraska and Washington along with the primary in Louisiana.
Meanwhile, The Daily Iowan printed the AP story reported by Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson, under the headline, "Obama Bests McCain in New AP Poll," The Daily Iowan, February 12, 2008, p. A5 (which I cannot find in its online edition). Against McCain Obama wins by 48-42%; Clinton and McCain are in virtual tie at 45-46%. Clinton did no better than Obama with two groups that have previously favored her: whites and women. (While among men, in a McCain-Clinton match-up, they prefer McCain by 9 points, but split evenly with Obama; younger men favor Obama by 9 points over McCain.) Matched against McCain, women choose Obama by 12 points, and Clinton by 11. Among minorities, Obama gets 74% of their votes when running against McCain -- 7 points more than Clinton.
In short, this is a major, major story -- especially given the role of the super delegates and the emphasis they tend to put on who can win (as do Democratic voters generally). And yet the Register chooses to dismiss it with the line in a little sidebar, "MATCHUPS: McCain remains competitive in head-to-head matchups against both Democratic contenders . . .." [p. A2].
Feb. 13, 11:30 a.m. -- Register acknowledges existence of 2008 presidential election contest. David Espo/Associated Press, "Win in Virginia is Sixth Straight for Obama; On the Republican Side, John McCain Narrowly Edges Mike Huckabee," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 13, 2008, p. A1. (Although not available from Register online, it can be found as David Espo, "Obama, McCain Win Virginia Primaries," Associated Press/AP Online, February 12, 2008, 9:46 p.m.) Below the fold, at the bottom of the page, it was at least on page one, and a fairly straight story -- although the Register deleted the line, "An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found Obama with a narrow lead over the Arizona senator [Senator John McCain] in a potential match-up, and Clinton running about even," characterizing Obama's lead as simply, "the two camps debated which contender is more likely to defeat McCain in the general election." And of course, presumably because of early deadlines, the Register's headline referred only to "Sixth Straight for Obama" rather than the eight it now is. Nor did the story report anything beyond bland generalities regarding the extent to which Obama is not only winning eight contests in a row, not only winning by margins of 2-or-3-to-one but, most significantly, now increasingly adding to his base demographic (African-Americans, upper income, well educated, and young people) larger and larger shares -- often even besting Clinton -- of those demographics formerly providing her support (women, white men, older voters).
1:00 p.m.: The great irony is that the Register columnist, David Yepsen, has written a balanced column about what's really going on in this primary.That's the good news. The bad news? It's not in the paper! It's a blog entry, available only to those who search for it. David Yepsen, "On Politics: Of Delegates and Demographics," Des Moines Register Online, February 12, 2008. He begins, "Despite all the network talk about how close the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race has become, Obama is starting to put this away." He then itemizes six categories of reasons why and concludes,
"Bottom line: He’s winning. She’s losing. It’s only a matter of time. While there will be lots of talk about how this will have to be decided by the superdelegates, the fact is those superdelegates are politicians. They can put a wet finger in the wind quicker than any of the rest of us and sense that reality.
They will also want to get with a winner. They will want to unify their party and move on. O-mentum will accelerate."
Has this already appeared in the Register's hard copy paper edition? Is it (or some revision thereof) scheduled for publication later? If not, why not? What is going on at the Register?
Feb. 14, 12:30 p.m. -- It's Valentines Day; Time to Credit the Register Where Credit is Due. Today's page one, bottom of the page, in the "Inside Today's Register" feature, there's a picture of a charming, smiling, energized Senator Clinton, but a headline: "Clinton's Support Slipping Among Women, Whites." So, it may be coming nearly one week late, but the paper is finally acknowledging (on page A6) that its candidate is in real serious trouble (as its columnist, David Yepsen, pointed out yesterday -- though from a blog entry that's yet to appear in the hard copy paper).
The demographics that have been thought to be hers have been moving over to Senator Obama. The story on page 6 (unavailable from the Register online) is Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson, "Women, Whites Leaving Clinton; Her Support Among Other Groups Also Seems to be Slipping, Exit Polls Show," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 14, 2008, p. A6.
The story is available online as Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson, "Clinton's Edge Slips With Whites, Women," Associated Press/wtopnews.com, February 14, 2008, 6:32 a.m. ET. (This version contains a good deal more than the Register's edit, but I cannot say that either is more or less favorable to Senator Clinton than the other.)
So thank you, and Happy Valentine's Day, Register!]
What Follows Are Links to, and Quotes From, the Stories Referenced
in the February 10th Portion of This Blog Entry
David Espo, Associated Press, "The Race to the White House: Iowa winners Obama, Huckabee add to totals; McCain still far ahead in GOP delegate count; Clinton, Obama tight," The Gazette, February 10, 2008, p. A1.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Clinton’s slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign.
“Today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say ‘Yes, we can,’” Obama told a cheering audience of Democrats at a party dinner in Richmond, Va.
Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut, "Obama Handily Wins Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington," Washington Post, February 10, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama dominated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in presidential balloting in Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington state last night, besting her by huge margins in those contests and further narrowing her slender advantage in delegates needed to claim the Democratic presidential nomination.
Kate Zernike, "Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States," New York Times, February 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him. The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead.
David Espo, Associated Press, "Obama, Clinton Fight in 3 States; Huckabee Wins 1," Des Moines Register, February 10, 2008, p. A2 [not available from Register online].
Although the Register does not make an online version available of the AP story it used, what follows is a version of it as presented by Yahoo! News. The Register did not run all of it; the portions it omitted are [enclosed in brackets] -- for example, the AP story's noting that Obama raised $7 million in two days and Clinton had to loan her campaign $5 million.
David Espo, Associated Press, "Democrats battle; Huckabee wins Kan.," Yahoo! News, February 9, 2008, 6:11 p.m. ET
Sen. John McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting, losing the Kansas caucuses on Saturday. Democratic rivals Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton competed for convention delegates across three states in their landmark struggle for the party's presidential nomination.
McCain fell in Kansas to Mike Huckabee, who got nearly 60 percent of the caucus vote a few hours after telling conservatives in Washington, "I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them." The former Arkansas governor won all 36 delegates at stake.
Republicans also voted in a primary in Louisiana and held caucuses in Washington.
McCain began the day with 719 delegates, far ahead of his remaining rivals. Huckabee's Kansas victory left him with 234.
The Democratic race was far different, close and likely to get closer.
A total of 158 delegates was at stake in the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington. Caucuses in the Virgin Islands offered three more.
Preliminary results of a survey of voters leaving their polling places in Louisiana showed that nearly half of those casting ballots were black. As a group, African-Americans have overwhelmingly favored Obama in earlier primaries, helping him to wins in South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.
One in seven Democratic voters and about one in 10 Republicans said Hurricane Katrina had caused their families severe hardship from which they have not recovered. There was another indication of the impact the storm had on the state. Early results suggested that northern Louisiana accounted for a larger share of the electorate than in the past, presumably the result of the decline of population in the hurricane-battered New Orleans area.
Clinton began the day with a slender delegate lead in The Associated Press count. She had 1,055 delegates to 998 for Obama. A total of 2,025 is required to win the nomination at the party convention in Denver.
[The day's contests opened a new phase in the Democratic race between Clinton, attempting to become the first woman in the White House, and Obama, hoping to become the first black.]
The Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses in 22 states, which once looked likely to effectively settle the race, instead produced a near-equal delegate split.
That left Obama and Clinton facing the likelihood of a grind-it-out competition lasting into spring — if not to the convention itself.
[With the night's events, 29 of the 50 states have selected delegates.]
[Two more — Michigan and Florida — held renegade primaries and the Democratic National Committee has vowed not to seat any delegates chosen at either of them.]
Maine, with 24 delegates, holds caucuses on Sunday. [Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia and voting by Americans overseas are next, on Tuesday, with 175 combined.]
[Then follows a brief intermission, followed by a string of election nights, some crowded, some not.]
[The date of March 4 looms large, 370 delegates in primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.]
[Mississippi is alone in holding a primary one week later, with a relatively small 33 delegates at stake.]
[Puerto Rico anchors the Democratic calendar, with 55 delegates chosen in caucuses on June 7.]
People were turned away from a University of Maine student center Saturday morning as Clinton spoke to a capacity crowd of about 1,750 people. [She urged supporters to participate in Sunday's caucuses.]
"This is your chance to be part of helping Maine pick a president," she said. "So I hope even if you've never, ever caucused before, tomorrow will be your first time ... because there is so much at stake in this election."
Obama, also campaigning in Maine, looked ahead to the general election, criticizing Republican McCain without mentioning his Democratic rival.
McCain initially "stood up to George Bush and opposed his first cuts," Obama said at Nicky's Diner in Bangor. Now the GOP senator is calling for continuing those tax cuts, which grant significant breaks to high-income taxpayers, "in his rush to embrace the worst of the Bush legacy."
[If Super Tuesday failed to settle the campaign, it produced a remarkable surge in fundraising.]
[Obama's aides announced he had raised more than $7 million on line in the two days that followed.]
[Clinton disclosed she had loaned her campaign $5 million late last month in an attempt to counter her rival's Super Tuesday television advertising. She raised more than $6 million in the two days after the busiest night in primary history.]
[The television ad wars continued unabated.]
[Obama has been airing commercials for more than a week in television markets serving every state that has a contest though Feb 19.]
[Clinton began airing ads midweek in Washington state, Maine and Nebraska, and added Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on Friday.]
[The exit poll was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for The Associated Press and the television networks.]
# # #
