Blaming media for their campaign woes didn't work for Bill and Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
Will it work for Barack Obama now that the general election is finally under way, or will it look rather unseemly for a candidate that has received kinder treatment from the press than any in history to start pointing fingers at them when he missteps?
After all, it wasn't media members that seemingly revised their Iraq strategy on Thursday.
But you couldn't tell from comments the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee made on the stump Saturday according to the Associated Press (emphasis added):
Earlier in the day as he flew from Montana to Missouri, Obama told reporters he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and reaffirmed his commitment to ending the war if elected. [...]
And Obama was perplexed that his statement on Iraq was dissected as it was.
"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."
What? You're one election away from being the most powerful man in the world, and you find it puzzling that folks are analyzing your every word?
On the other hand, you really can't blame Obama for being surprised. After all, for well over a year, absolutely nothing he said or did was even remotely questioned or examined. It therefore must be shocking for him to suddenly be experiencing any scrutiny whatsoever.
Alas, this is what happens when press members abdicate their responsibility as impartial journalists and become shameless advocates for the candidates they support.
Even so, Obama should learn from what happened to the Clintons during the primaries and be very careful with his media criticisms, as reporters clearly don't like it when they are the hunted.
It will be interesting to see whether this was just a moment, or the beginning of a new strategy to work the umpires.
Stay tuned.
