Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

Are you intentionally trying to lower the quality of the discussion?

Typical - That you would not be concerned that the so called news organizations spit out White House talking points and call it news...

And now they admit it!

The story you quoted doesn't even say what you are taking from it. You even bolded the part where they said they were trying to get the focus on what Obama actually said rather than what the campaign tactic was. What exactly is wrong with that?

making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it,

The story you quoted doesn't even say what you are taking from it. You even bolded the part where they said they were trying to get the focus on what Obama actually said rather than what the campaign tactic was. What exactly is wrong with that?

personally I'd like a news organization that reports the news and lets me come to my own conclusions. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW.

Call me a dreamer, but I would like a news organization that actually challenges what the politicians say, instead of letting them use their airwaves with no conditions.

Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.


How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.

Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers"

Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.


How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.

Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers"

Or imagine John McCain quoting Mao.

Or, just watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w

Well if there is more to that quote other than quoting mao..let me know... but I don't think Mccain goes on say Mao is his favorite political philosophers - does he?

But this is not about what the news organizations intended to cover or actually covered, its about what the strategy of the campaign was for getting the coverage they wanted. Why should the campaign not have such a strategy?

a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

I think you missed the point - This is exactly what the communications directors job is ... get the Media to recite your talking points... and they did this very well and still do today - This is an indictment on the MSM

Did you watch the rest of her speech? She was making the point that Mao and Mother Theresa were the two people she favored going to in order to make this particular point.

If you are trying to convince people that she accepts all of Mao's political philosophies you are a worse propagandist than Mao was.

No, that is exactly the point I made. This is the communications director's job and she was doing it well, what exactly is noteworthy about what she said? This is no "indictment" of anything, it is a known campaign strategy expressed by a strategist. And as far as campaign strategies go, getting the media to talk about the content of your candidate's speech is among the more noble.

Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.


How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.

Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers"

Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.


How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.

What's sadly not shocking at all is the admission that the major network news outlets are in lust with this White House. REALLY? lol

Honestly guys this is not what the video is about. It is about how the Obama campaign attempted to control their message to the press. Watch the video. It's actually kind of interesting, but has no info on how the campaign went from the media's perspective. What campaign does not control their message to the media? There is no "admission" of anything.

That was 85suited's distortion... well, at least it was the distortion by whatever blog he read.

Nothing to see here.

RON BLOOM: In fact, in retrospect one finds that these restructurings are better than the slow death that our companies were in; but at the time and in the moment, it is almost never something we welcome. So, this is a..., but nevertheless, this is a world we've had to learn about. As we've tried to learn about this world, we have evolved some views....

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, 'cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch.

We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.

Ron Bloom - Obama's Manufacturing Czar, long time union negotiator -in a keynote address at the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum, Union League Club, New York, February 27-28, 2008.

He apparently is not a fan of free markets

KEEP DRINKING THE FUCKING KOOL AID

This thread is painful to accept. So I won't.

You know, I really liked Kool Aid as a kid, but I think it would be disgusting now. I mean, it's basically just pure sugar that you pour into water, right?

No, it also has communism in it.

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

You know, I really liked Kool Aid as a kid, but I think it would be disgusting now. I mean, it's basically just pure sugar that you pour into water, right?