OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

El-Sayed Defends Obama Ties in Michigan Senate Race

6 sources · updated 2026-10-13
Left 33% Center 0% Right 67%
2 left · 0 center · 4 right

What happened

On October 11, 2026, Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, who faces Republican Mike Rogers on November 3, addressed past criticism of former President Barack Obama in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. In a 2012 Huffington Post essay, El-Sayed, then a 28-year-old Columbia University epidemiology professor, wrote that Obama “was not the right choice,” that he had “perpetuated war, violated our civil liberties, deported more people from our shores than any other president before him, and the list of his failures goes on”; El-Sayed also criticized Obama in a 2017 Vox interview and at a 2020 University of Chicago panel. In the Meet the Press interview he said “We’ve lived through two Trump terms now,” that Obama “was handed a really difficult set of circumstances, and he did his best,” that the op-eds came from when he was “younger” and “angry,” that Democrats “stand on the shoulders of giants,” and that his view of Obama resembled his view of his father—someone without whose efforts he would not have his life, yet someone he would still do some things differently from. Obama, whose appearance with El-Sayed and gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson at a Detroit rally on October 24 had been announced on October 6, later released an ad endorsing El-Sayed.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 6 articles

4 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Abdul El-Sayed, Kristen Welker and Abdul el Sayed
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 11, 11:13 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage never reprints El-Sayed's 2012 charges against Obama, so the Meet the Press walk-back arrives without the original indictment. Right-leaning coverage at Daily Caller quotes him writing that Obama "perpetuated war" and deported more people than any president before him. The fullest right-leaning write-ups of the same interview are simply more complete on that record, and readers of only the left-leaning accounts cannot judge how far Sunday's praise sits from the published attack. Right-leaning coverage leads with El-Sayed likening Obama to a father he would still second-guess. Left-leaning coverage never mentions that analogy. The emphasis split is the headline. Left-leaning coverage opens on candidates who "stand on the shoulders of giants," and Daily Wire leads with the parent comparison. None of the coverage asks whether El-Sayed still considers Obama's deportation and war records failures, or only regrets the tone of the old essays.
Bottom line

If you read NBC News, El-Sayed was younger and angry. Daily Caller is where the same Sunday interview actually carries his 2012 line that Obama perpetuated war.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • In a 2012 HuffPost essay El-Sayed wrote that Obama perpetuated war, violated civil liberties, and deported more people than any other president before him contextin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • At a 2020 University of Chicago panel El-Sayed said the country was not better off eight years after Obama's election contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the interview as El-Sayed accounting for earlier frustration without repudiating Obama’s place in the party. NBC News centered his description of his earlier self as “younger” and “angry”; The Hill led with Democrats now standing “on the shoulders of giants.” They treated Obama’s forthcoming Detroit appearance, and the later endorsement ad, as confirmation that the former president was not treating the old essays as disqualifying.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets framed the same interview as a late walk-back ahead of a joint rally. The Daily Caller said El-Sayed “rolled back” and “glossed over” the earlier attacks; the Washington Examiner said he “blamed” them on a “younger” and “angry” self; the Daily Wire highlighted the father comparison coming after he had complained about Obama’s “failures.” They presented the timing—the rally announced days earlier—and the gap between the 2012 language and the filial metaphor as the story’s core.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that Obama’s decision to rally and cut an ad, together with El-Sayed’s “two Trump terms” and “shoulders of giants” lines, supports reading the interview as a realignment after later events rather than a live feud. The right’s strongest argument is the mismatch between the 2012 essay’s categorical charges and a father analogy that arrived only after a joint appearance was locked in. The central unresolved tension is whether El-Sayed’s revised account is a sincere change of judgment or a campaign necessity.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.