Subject: Peter Baker
From: "Anita Dunn" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Podesta" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Pete Rouse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:44:41 -0500

The Times has decided against a magazine piece so he is doing daily
reporting on the transition efforts for both campaigns and writing for
this weekend.  The Post is working on a similar piece.

I just played a long game of "I'm not going to comment on that" with
Peter.  Here is what he told me:

1)      Jim Hamilton has begun vetting 

2)      13 working groups

3)      Decision made on staffing decisions before Cabinet - belief that
trying to do Cabinet first was huge problem for Clinton administration

4)      No problems with security clearances that he's heard

I told him that not only did I not know what was going on but that we
weren't discussing transition period - so a lot of "I don't know" stuff
on my end.  I have asked Chris to send an email out to folks reminding
them that as we get closer to the election the press inquiries will
accelerate but the same rules apply.  

It's my understanding that Balz was pretty aggressive with Palmieri
around our lack of cooperation in these stories - Peter Baker was in his
own nice way pretty aggressive with me (anytime I am accused of being
like "the bushies"!)  The argument is 1) two wars; 2) financial meltdown
3) lead in polls equals need for Obama to reassure country he's
proceeding and ready for a seamless, or as seamless as possible,
transition.  Not suggesting we change our stance on no discussion right
now - simply flagging that we may draw a little good
government/editorial flack as we get closer