Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
HANGING WITH BAM.
Mike Calderone reports that Obama tried to smooth some feathers ruffled by last night's dinner with conservative commentators by scheduling a meeting today with the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, the Wall Street Journal's Gerry Seib, National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the New York Times Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, among others. My invitation was obviously lost in the tubes. These things happen, guys. In the future, call my celly.
But if this really was to placate liberals, it wasn't necessary [See Update -- Ezra]. There was nothing threatening in Obama's dinner. Go back to the guest list: George Will, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Larry Kudlow, David Brooks, Rich Lowry, Peggy Noonan, Michael Barone, and Paul Gigot. You don't break bread with Larry Kudlow because you want a rich intellectual exchange. You break bread with Kudlow because he's a buffoon, and can be flattered. If news came out that Obama was having a weekly powwow with Brooks, Will, and Frum, you might see some concern in liberal quarters. But so long as Barone and Gigot are at the table, it's a fairly safe bet that you're just dealing with garden variety outreach to conservative influencers.
Meanwhile, the important thing Obama could do for the "liberal" media is not have dinner with them. That's good for egos but meaningless for influence. It is, however, well within Obama's power to increase the influence of progressive outlets. Covering the presidency is the central concern of political reportage. And an outlet's ability to cover the presidency can be affected by the favor of the President. If The American Prospect and TPM Cafe and Huffington Post and others of our ilk were given the occasional interview with Obama, and fed useful scoops, that would rapidly increase our readership, our importance in the broader media ecosystem, and the likelihood that members of our outlets would go on to hold key positions in more mainstream institutions. To give just one example, if was understood that Mark Schmitt had more contacts with the Obama crew than Howard Fineman, the Sunday shows would be more likely to turn to Schmitt for analysis. In the long-run, that would be good for both Obama and for progressivism. And he wouldn't even have to waste time watching me chew my dinner.
Update: I just talked to one of the liberal participants who said today's event was scheduled, at least in his case, a week ago. So it wasn't a hasty response to the Will dinner.
COMMENTS (13)
This is so dumb.
Don't you think that, in order to gather all these luminaries, this would have been planned way before the conservative dinner news leaked last night ?
He was smoothing ruffled feathers ? WHAT-EVER !
Posted by: michelle | January 14, 2009 3:11 PM
Was he smoothing ruffled feathers, I wonder, or would this have been set up prior to the conservo-dinner last night? There really didn't seem to be too much evidence of hurt feelings among lefties between late last night and 9am this morning. I just assumed that the Obama team pre-planned time with both groups.
Posted by: Gwendy | January 14, 2009 3:12 PM
um, Politico just makes stuff up. The facts they report are generally accurate - they are never *new* facts of course. What Politico adds to the facts are explanations of motivation that are somewhere between known through reporting and completely speculative. Their articles are written in such a way that it is unclear what is known through reporting and what is merely being speculated. Thus, the accuracy of their reporting can't be evaluated, since obviously some speculation will be accurate (it's based on common sense, past history, etc.).
When will people just start ignoring Politico? And by people I don't mean lazy/moronic "political reporters" like Mark Halperin who used daddy's connections to get a job, but I mean bloggers and readers of the news and serious journalists, whomever they are. As with everything in the "new media", if you ignore them, they'll go away.
Posted by: Bahrad | January 14, 2009 3:21 PM
Man, Ezra, you are becoming a total tool with your giving credit to "liberal outcry" for everything Obama does, even if was scheduled way before any outcry occurred.
Posted by: Freakshow | January 14, 2009 6:02 PM
Most of us who would be bothered by this have already written off Obama, and by extension the Democratic party.
It's become increasingly clear that Ralph Nader wasn't just right, he was a patriot and a hero. There is only one, corporate party. One half openly hates gay people, the other half pretends not to hate gay people. Economically, the only difference is by degree
There won't be an economic recovery, and a good 30% of the people who currently 'approve' of the job Obama is doing will never vote for him. Not in a million years. I hope you enjoy your 1 term.
Posted by: soullite | January 14, 2009 6:22 PM
"I hope you enjoy your 1 term."
Yeah. Because Ralph 2012 is totally happening. Grow up.
Posted by: emartin | January 14, 2009 6:58 PM
Thanks for supporting this guy, Ezra, and for being so horrible about the other Democratic candidate last year. I guess it's your tender age that made you mistake him for a progressive. And now the rest of us older people facing retirement, gay people facing a probably backtrack on civil rights, etc. will pay the price. You won't.
Posted by: K2 | January 14, 2009 7:38 PM
Gay peoople facing a backtrack? You blithering idiot. It will never happen. To the contrary, the military will shortly be gay friendly, unknown consequences to follow but what the hell do you care? A strong military doesn't matter to you -- only gay rights. The fact that the demographic group that traditionally signs up for service will NOT be pleased by the change shouldn't give you pause, you selfish selfish moron.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2009 7:52 PM
As for the "Liberal" journalists he also had dinner with? Well, maybe some of them (coughRachelMaddowcough). But Andrew Sullivan? Frank Rich? For crying out loud, Maureen Dowd???
Opposition to The Worst President Ever does not make you a Liberal - it makes you a NotStupid. When the other folks at the table (besides Rachel) are people like Amy Goodman, Seymour Hersh or Bill Moyers, THEN I'll call the whole group "Liberal". Otherwise, it's just another example of moving the goalposts farther right.
Posted by: Saffi | January 15, 2009 1:18 AM
The Right love their symbolic language/theatre, while the Left want more empirically-derived policies enacted. One could argue that's been one of the prime differences between the two worldviews for at least 12 years: Theatre versus Reality. Circus versus Bread.
BHO has consistently shown that he's more than willing to throw the Right some symbolic bones, so to speak: Rick Warren gets to say a little prayer or two, for example. But... so what?
Does anyone seriously believe this means that Rick Warren's going to be setting Obama's civil rights agenda? Seriously?
Let the Right have their little Circus, if that's what it takes to get the Bread.
I wish more on the Left would realize this.
Posted by: the dreaming ape | January 15, 2009 10:25 AM
Um, you are in denial if you think there is no difference between the right wing dinner, and the left wing office meeting. The conservative dinner party is a very surprising move, and bears scrutiny. My guess is that he actually respects them more, intellectually, than he does, say, EJ Dionne or Rachel Maddow. The office meeting was just a bone thrown to the left. But he is seeking the approval and respect of people like Kristol and Krauthammer.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2009 10:30 AM
Only amongst DC's yuppie snobs is it mutually exclusive to be both an intellectual and pleasant.
Posted by: Kevin | January 15, 2009 3:19 PM
huh? I say again, Obama appears to be seeking recognition from the right wing intellectuals. He's tired of the old leftist slogans and bromides (planet in peril, Hamas good, climate change the greatest threat we face -- meanwhile we're freezing our asses off)
Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2009 8:35 PM