Stupid? Or Just Naive?

I generally like Dana Milbank's column. But, unfortunately, sometimes if somebody is paying you to come up with a column, you have to come up with a column, whether you've got anything worth saying or not.

That's the only explanation I could come up with for today's silliness, which admiringly recited NY Times reporter Peter Baker's question at yesterday's Obama press conference.

When Barack Obama stood on the stage in Chicago yesterday with his "dear friend" Hillary Clinton ... Peter Baker of the New York Times pointed out to Obama that he once held a different view of his nominee to be secretary of state. "You belittled her travels around the world, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders," Baker recalled. "And your new White House counsel said that her résumé was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. I'm wondering whether you can talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring."

Exactly what was Mr. Baker expecting Obama to answer to that? Yet Dana spends all his column space reciting every example his researcher could find of Barack and Hillary dissing each other during -- as though that made the question, which Obama appropriately dismissed with a chuckle, some kind of masterstroke. (I thank Dana for not using the phrase, "speaking truth to power," even though I suspect it was in his first draft.)

If I had an opportunity as a reporter to ask Obama a question, I might try to think of one that might result in an answer. One that would result in new information being shared. Important information. I don't think I'd ask a question that made me look like a rube. Not intentionally, anyway.

Joe Klein at Time has it right:

Watching the Obama rollout of his national security team from overseas--I'm in Europe, on my way to Afghanistan--I was struck by the inanity of most of the questions from my colleagues. Granted, these are political reporters, not national security or foreign policy specialists [emphasis added], but what sort of journalist expects the President-elect to tell the "inside story" of how he selected Hillary Clinton? (Those sorts of stories, if told at all, are wrenched from aides on background--and reported only after consulting multiple sources.) And what's the point of raising the nasty things Obama and Clinton said about each other during the primaries? Did the reporter expect Obama to say, "Well, I still believe her resume is overblown, that's why I appointed her...oh, and by the way, she still thinks it's dumb to talk to the Iranians without preconditions."

Yes, there is a glaring difference between what Obama and Clinton were saying about each other during the campaign, and what they're saying now. But Dana, is this your first election? Is this really a surprise to you? Is this the best question we can be asking right now?