FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"Transparency." What was once a great rallying cry for President Obama seems to have fallen by the wayside... in the tradition of so many campaign promises.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/14/art.obama.summit.2.jpg.jpg caption="Pres. Obama answers reporters' questions during a news conference at the conclusion of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC."]
The latest example comes from the Nuclear Security Summit taking place in Washington this week. Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post that world leaders arriving in the U.S. Capital may have felt more like they were transported to Soviet-era Moscow... with Pres. Obama "putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press."
Milbank details how foreign reporters were shut out of press availabilities after only minutes. One journalist reporting for an Arabic-language TV station said they were only present for Mr. Obama's meeting with Jordan's king for about 30 seconds... not long enough to notice the tie colors of the two leaders.
Also - Multiple events on the president's official schedule yesterday were "closed press"... leading reporters who have covered the White house for decades to say these were the most restricted meetings they'd ever seen.
Where's the transparency we were promised? This disregard for the media is becoming somewhat of a theme for President Obama... from closed events like the recent meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu... to the president's signing of an executive order on abortion. No media coverage allowed for any of this stuff.
Not to mention another broken campaign promise of televising the health care debates live on C-Span.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to transparency, is Pres. Obama keeping his word?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Jack in Virginia writes:
Wake up, Jack! Obama never cared what the media think. They are useful idiots when the spin is positive (like during the campaign) and annoying pests who deserve to be ignored when times are not so good (like now). You and your media pals have been had.
Matt in Santa Barbara, California writes:
A certain amount of closed-door activity is necessary in diplomacy and in reaching consensus. This allows leaders to search for the best answers without being hounded by "news" agencies looking for a sound bite that will later be used against the speaker, usually out of context.
James in Hanahan, South Carolina writes:
He certainly is more transparent than past presidents. They will never be transparent enough to suit the press and that is not necessarily a bad thing. By the way, you are dead right that you are very good a whining.
Carlene writes:
When candidates run for office, I don't think they are exactly "privy" to all the inside info that the president has access to. Could it be that once a candidate actually gets into office they find that things are a little different than they thought, therefore not everything should be leaked to the press and the general public? Transparency is a wonderful thing, but not at the expense of national security.
Don writes:
I would say the president is not keeping his word. And I supported his campaign and voted for him. I am very disappointed. He said he would open things up, and I see his administration being just as closed and secretive as past administrations. I voted for change and I got the same old thing.
June writes:
I love it! The media, who have been fawning over the president since he announced he was running, are now feeling shut out. Boo hoo. Is your leg tingling, Jack?