E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
From NBC's Athena Jones
President Obama talked Afghanistan, jobs, race in America and down time in a conversation with the women of ABC's "The View," which aired Thursday morning. He also played media critic, blasting the media for focusing too much on controversy.
Obama, who taped the appearance Wednesday during a trip to New York for two big-dollar fundraisers, last appeared on the program during the presidential campaign, in March 2008. First Lady Michelle Obama was a featured guest co-host in June of that year, according to an ABC release.
When asked to sum up the most difficult issues he has faced as president -- the "thorns," as Barbara Walters put it -- the president joked that he didn't know where to begin, before going on to list the economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the swine flu pandemic, and the oil spill, among other matters. But he said despite those challenges, his term so far had been satisfying.
Pressed on the economy and the continued high unemployment rate by Elisabeth Hasselbeck, one of the more conservative members of the group, the president defended the actions his administration had taken to get the economy back on track and emphasized that there had been five straight months of private-sector job growth.
"You're absolutely right that it's not enough," the president said, "and if you don't have a job right now, the only answer that you want to hear is, 'I'm hired'."
America still has a lot of work to do in Afghanistan, Obama replied, when Walters said that since there were only 50 or so members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, "Why don't we get out?"
The president talked about having campaigned on ending combat operations in Iraq and giving more attention and resources to the fight in Afghanistan.
"The problem that we've got is that although al Qaeda right now is primarily in Pakistan in those border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said, "it's not hard for them to move in and out across those borders. These are uncontrolled borders, and the folks who perpetrated 9/11 and their allies are still congregated there. That is still the epicenter of terrorism targeting the United States and what we need is to have a stable Afghanistan and a Pakistan that is not a sanctuary for terrorism."
He repeated the commitment to "start thinning out our troops" in July 2011 once the Afghan government and security forces gain strength and stability, but said that America had "real security interests" in the region and that it was important for the coalition troops there to prevent what he called "Chaosistan."
"I'm not interested in an open-ended commitment," he said. "At a certain point, we've gotta focus on building the United States -- do some nation-building here in the United States and not overseas. That's gotta be a priority, but we've gotta finish the job that we started."
As is the case in many of his public appearances, the president shared his views on the media and what he called "pundits on the news," saying he focuses on things the media doesn't. He said the speed of the news cycle had influenced the events surrounding the unfair firing of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod after remarks she made were taken out of context.
"What I do think happened in that situation is that a 24/7 media cycle that's always looking for controversy and oftentimes doesn't get to the facts first, generated a phony controversy," he began. "A lot of people overreacted, including people in my administration and part of the lesson I want everybody to draw is: let's not assume the worst of other people, let's assume the best. Let's make sure that we get the facts straight before we act, and when it comes to race, let's acknowledge that of course there are still tensions out there."
Obama said he was not invited to former first daughter Chelsea Clinton's wedding, because the Clintons had chosen to keep the focus on their daughter and her friends, which he said was appropriate. He also acknowledged the security challenges his going to the wedding would have presented.
"It would be tough enough having one president at a wedding," he said. "You don't want two presidents at a wedding."
On pop culture, Obama allowed that he did not actually write the Tweets that appear under his name, a revelation that was a surprise to no one. He said he had all sorts of artists on his IPod, including Jay-Z, Frank Sinatra and Maria Callas, but no Justin Bieber. And for the 'Jersey Shore' fans out there, the president reported that he did not know who Snooki was, but that he did know that the actress Lindsay Lohan was serving jail time.
He also said that while he still has a Blackberry, "only 10 people have" his email address.
Leave a Comment:
You mean to tell me Hasselbeck was dumb enough to ask Obama a question on TV, where he would have a chance to respond? Doesn't she know she's not on the set of "Fox and Friends"?
Before you know where you're not, you have to know where you are. Enough said?
I think it's great obama is spending time on the view and taking more vacation. That way he can do less damage to our country. At $200K per job, if he saves anymore he'll bankrupt the rest of us!! What sets me off is that he is actually bragging about his performance!!! And, I loved watching the blamer in chief pin the Sharrod firing on the media. I guess Breitbart must sign all the gov't hire/fire paperwork?!?! To you liberal loones, there has to be a time when you lay down that pipe, clear your head and wonder how you could support this moron??
I'm not sure Elisaditz can tell you where she's at half the time. Even if you let her round to the nearest galaxy!
Exactly, Auntie. Even if she had a map.
The View's Elizabeth Hasselbeck's question about "saved jobs" was a good one. If President Obama still gave press conferences, instead of delegating sole responsibility for being unresponsive to the press to Gibby, he would be asked about this more often. Since the Skip Gates affair, President Obama has made clear his disdain for unscripted give-and-take with the White House Press corps.
But, I digress.
"Saved jobs" is not a measurable metric, and the use of the term is nothing more than a desperation tactic from a business-unfriendly Administration that is utterly clueless with regard to the fundamentals of private-sector job creation...and the private-sector job creation figures for the last two months prove it.
And that's exactly what we clueless liberals like best about it. But it seems to me that republicans also like things that can't be measured. Like there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I'm sure Dick Cheney still thinks there were.
And I think the stimulus packages saved jobs. How many? About as many jobs as there were weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad.
I challenge you to say otherwise.
Anna Molly-
Do want the list of Democrats who insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, had already used them, and was prepared to do so again?
It's quite a lengthy list, so if you'll stipulate to its existence, I'll dispense with posting it for you.
You've already stipulated to my central point...that "saved jobs" is not a measurable metric.
Mixed Bag
"Saved jobs" is not a measurable metric, and the use of the term is nothing more than a desperation tactic from a business-unfriendly Administration that is utterly clueless with regard to the fundamentals of private-sector job creation...and the private-sector job creation figures for the last two months prove it.
Wow, partner if you're still working I bet YOU can.
FYI: business unfriendly is the stooge Republicans in Congress that blocked the $30 billion government fund small business lending bill. That would create and save a lot of jobs; ya know?
No business to people with jobs = peoplego to indiscriminate Unemployment lines; get it?
Loans to banks= people starting businesses to create jobs; get it?
Get your abacus out and start counting!
Of course it saved jobs. It was used to fill in for the states shortfalls for their public workers. There would have been massive government job layoffs in many states last year if the feds didn't funnel that money to the states.
But the Stimulus didn't do what it was intended to do. That is, stimulate the economy. 2.5 million jobs have been lost since the Stimulus was passed, and the stats for the last couple of months job creation has been anemic at best, so no, the Stimulus did not stimulate the economy.
And what is the number of "saved jobs" the White House is claiming? A good statistic would be to know how much each of those "saved jobs" cost the American taxpayer.
Hi there, cupcake. WHere did 2.5 million jobs go? Aren't those tax braks for the wealthy that are supposed to help create jobs 'in a free market' still on the books? Also- why is the taxpayer subsidizing the wealthy via those tax breaks to send jobs to China and India?
Bye' and remember: I only have eyes for EWE, cupcake. (you DID say I had a thing for ugly sheep, didn't you?)
I hate to crow here, Bag Boy, but you're plum out of luck, because as I said to CA below, pi cannot calculated exactly, and therefore, according to you, it doesn't exist. Therefore, all that pie that you usually eat after I send you to the corner just poofed.
Sorry about that. I do have a special on apples today, in case you're interested.
By the way, how many apples in a bushel and a peck?
p.s. I stipulate to nothing without the advice of counsel. Post the list. That will be the number of democrats who were duped by the Bush Administration's lies. After that, we'll work on the republicans.
It might be a long afternoon. For a light, nutritious snack, I recommend the apples.
drive-thru, how are those sheep of yours doing? Every time they come out from behind the barn with you, they look scared. And it's not clear why, because how could such a tiny thing hurt them that bad?
And we're all looking forward to those nasty Bush tax cuts expiring next year. They certainly have caused many, many problems. Once those tax cuts expire, we'll see jobs and prosperity return to the United States. It's a wonder that Obama and the Democrats just didn't rescind those tax cuts on Obama's first day in office. I guess he was busy with other things.
Be sure to say hi to your good friend PeeWee for me drive-thru. I seem to be on her s--- list, and it's not clear why.
Ooooh, Anna Molly-
Many...if not most, of the comments made by prominent Democrats, who were convinced of the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, actually pre-date the Bush Administration.
They were clearly responding to some source of information...but they certainly weren't being duped by a Bush Administration that didn't exist when their views were expressed.
Additionally, the intelligence organizations of so many nations...Great Britain, France, Russia, Israel, and of course, the United States, were convinced of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, and its determination to use them. No wonder that so many Democratic politicians agreed.
I do love apples, though...
So did you think you would get apples for contradicting me? Not bloody likely. At least not the fresh ones.
I always hate it when you come at me with facts, Bag Boy. Or do I like it? I don't know. Do you?
Anyway, don't do that again. Until tomorrow. I'll bring the apples.
I DVRed the show. I was so proud to listen to a President who genuinely cares and loves this country, wants to help it, and can speak the English language. He was smooth. Poor, clueless Eliz-a-bi!tch Hassleback. She asked what jobs had been saved. She must have felt really stupid when the President explained to her that hers had been.
How will FOX NOISE have her spin that truth?
LoL Love that. But how was her job saved?
The man is an analytical policy wonk with a keen sense of detail. Few can dabate the man successfully. Air head Hasslebeck could never come close. This is why I am impateint for those general election debates that will take place between Obama and whomever the republicans finally decide to take the fall in 2012. He will eat their lunch.
Why? What are they having for lunch?
(Hello, CA.)
A big hello to you Anna:
As far as your question I hear Obama is prettty flexible as to who or what to have for lunch. The Republican nominee of course will be ordering crow.
So are you faring well I hope. Summer going well for you?
Well, the only problem is that Obama will have to debate something he didn't have to deal with during his campaign in 2008. His record. Barack will have to use his 'analytical policy wonk' skills to explain the 10% unemployment rate. And it's doubtful the Republican nominee will want to eat Barack's lunch, which appears to be crow at the moment.
Wow CA, both of us had the "crow" routine going on! Great minds think alike, right CA? And you can quote me on that one!
Indeed it is, CA. Hopefully, yours is, too, and that Dog is doing well.
Will that crow be baked in a pie? Gotta love pie.
Except for poor Bag Boy. The exact value of pi cannot be measured, and therefore it must not exist. No pie for him. Just the crow.
Actually anna, pi cannot be expressed as a decimal, but the exact ratio is known. Just like 1/3 cannot be expressed as a finite decimal, but that number is known as well.
LoL And there you go, taking me literally. But how about the bushel and a peck?
One Key Question was about Race & the Shirley Sherrod Story. Mark Halperin is the only person who addresses this incident and media lows with the truth, A Must Read!
Mark Halperin: "stories emanating from the right are given more weight" by media
, explaining an obvious truth:
The Best Article That Explains The Media On Sterriods! A Must Read!
The Media Spiral: From O.J. to Sherrod
By mark Halparen Gets It!
Last week's focus on the forced ouster of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod was only the latest rerun of the legacy of Simpson Syndrome, a grotesque Groundhog Day set of conditions that occur all too often.
First, there are facts in dispute regarding the original incident.
Second, there are pending or anticipated events about which the media can speculate ceaselessly:
What will happen next?
When will it happen?
What will happen after it happens?
Third, there are swirling controversies pertaining to perennially hot themes such as
race, gender, sex, class and power.
And fourth,
there are vibrant characters on hand to expound, expand and suck up airtime
The Simpson investigation and trial were not explicitly political, but they brought serious questions to the public square and became a cause célèbre for every media outlet.
In the Sherrod storm, politics is, of course, directly involved, bringing a patina of legitimacy to the incessant news coverage.
And that explains why the firing of Sherrod last week paralyzed the Obama Administration and completely overwhelmed coverage of more important matters, such as the President's signing of the financial-regulation law, Washington's debates over how to deal with unemployment, major developments regarding Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq and about a dozen other truly significant stories.
Just as there was something intrinsically interesting about one of America's best-known and best-liked athletes being charged with a brutal double murder,
the craven sacking of Sherrod contained some elements that are undeniably compelling.
And both stories involved racial elements that increased their news velocity.
But the coverage of both sagas — Simpson's, literally, for years; Sherrod's for the better part of a week — was insanely overblown. T
he Sherrod story is a reminder — much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media.
In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny.
Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention.
Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.
So the news-and-information conveyor belt moves stories like the Sherrod case from Point A to Point Z without any of the standards or norms of traditional journalism,
not only resulting in grievous harm to the apparently blameless, such as Sherrod, but also crowding out news about virtually anything else.
The endless obsession with the Simpson story was absurd and gluttonous, and the pattern has been reproduced countless times since (the death of Anna Nicole Smith, the Gary Condit–Chandra Levy mystery, the ongoing Rod Blagojevich soap opera),
but the Sherrod story may be the low point of this phenomenon because of its illegitimate origins.
Andrew Breitbart, a conservative firebrand with a record of selectively editing video for partisan advantage, used a misleading snippet to produce a chain reaction that embarrassed the old media, the NAACP and the President of the United States — all of which led to even more content generated, rehashed, debated and mulched.
At a time when the country faces real challenges, with major elections coming up in November, did the nation really want to spend a week on this? Presidential advisers, including Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, who have earned virtual Ph.D.s in such political-media complexities, were on one level as seemingly powerless to stop the whole mess from spiraling out of control as were their predecessors in the Clinton and Bush White Houses. But the Obama Administration took the critical and alarming step of bowing to the expectations of the right and forcing Sherrod out of her job before completing even the most cursory investigation.
Gibbs and other officials publicly stopped short of saying it was all the media's fault, but they certainly suggested something very close to that. There is enough blame to go around. The new-media genie is not going back into the bottle; there are no easy solutions for how to end the dynamic unleashed by Orenthal James Simpson and his motley band of abettors, accusers, analysts and voyeurs.
But all of us who are involved in politics and media should take a moment to recognize that we have hit a low point. And let all of us resolve that, having hit bottom, it is time to start climbing out of the pit
Mark Halperin: "stories emanating from the right are given more weight" by media
, explaining an obvious truth:
The Best Article That Explains The Media On Sterriods! A Must Read!
The Media Spiral: From O.J. to Sherrod
By mark Halparen Gets It!
Last week's focus on the forced ouster of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod was only the latest rerun of the legacy of Simpson Syndrome, a grotesque Groundhog Day set of conditions that occur all too often.
First, there are facts in dispute regarding the original incident.
Second, there are pending or anticipated events about which the media can speculate ceaselessly:
What will happen next?
When will it happen?
What will happen after it happens?
Third, there are swirling controversies pertaining to perennially hot themes such as
race, gender, sex, class and power.
And fourth,
there are vibrant characters on hand to expound, expand and suck up airtime
The Simpson investigation and trial were not explicitly political, but they brought serious questions to the public square and became a cause célèbre for every media outlet.
In the Sherrod storm, politics is, of course, directly involved, bringing a patina of legitimacy to the incessant news coverage.
And that explains why the firing of Sherrod last week paralyzed the Obama Administration and completely overwhelmed coverage of more important matters, such as the President's signing of the financial-regulation law, Washington's debates over how to deal with unemployment, major developments regarding Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq and about a dozen other truly significant stories.
Just as there was something intrinsically interesting about one of America's best-known and best-liked athletes being charged with a brutal double murder,
the craven sacking of Sherrod contained some elements that are undeniably compelling.
And both stories involved racial elements that increased their news velocity.
But the coverage of both sagas — Simpson's, literally, for years; Sherrod's for the better part of a week — was insanely overblown. T
he Sherrod story is a reminder — much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media.
In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny.
Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention.
Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.
So the news-and-information conveyor belt moves stories like the Sherrod case from Point A to Point Z without any of the standards or norms of traditional journalism,
not only resulting in grievous harm to the apparently blameless, such as Sherrod, but also crowding out news about virtually anything else.
The endless obsession with the Simpson story was absurd and gluttonous, and the pattern has been reproduced countless times since (the death of Anna Nicole Smith, the Gary Condit–Chandra Levy mystery, the ongoing Rod Blagojevich soap opera),
but the Sherrod story may be the low point of this phenomenon because of its illegitimate origins.
Andrew Breitbart, a conservative firebrand with a record of selectively editing video for partisan advantage, used a misleading snippet to produce a chain reaction that embarrassed the old media, the NAACP and the President of the United States — all of which led to even more content generated, rehashed, debated and mulched.
At a time when the country faces real challenges, with major elections coming up in November, did the nation really want to spend a week on this? Presidential advisers, including Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, who have earned virtual Ph.D.s in such political-media complexities, were on one level as seemingly powerless to stop the whole mess from spiraling out of control as were their predecessors in the Clinton and Bush White Houses. But the Obama Administration took the critical and alarming step of bowing to the expectations of the right and forcing Sherrod out of her job before completing even the most cursory investigation.
Gibbs and other officials publicly stopped short of saying it was all the media's fault, but they certainly suggested something very close to that. There is enough blame to go around. The new-media genie is not going back into the bottle; there are no easy solutions for how to end the dynamic unleashed by Orenthal James Simpson and his motley band of abettors, accusers, analysts and voyeurs.
But all of us who are involved in politics and media should take a moment to recognize that we have hit a low point. And let all of us resolve that, having hit bottom, it is time to start climbing out of the pit
Mark Halperin: "stories emanating from the right are given more weight" by media
, explaining an obvious truth:
The Best Article That Explains The Media On Sterriods! A Must Read!
The Media Spiral: From O.J. to Sherrod
By mark Halparen Gets It!
Last week's focus on the forced ouster of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod was only the latest rerun of the legacy of Simpson Syndrome, a grotesque Groundhog Day set of conditions that occur all too often.
First, there are facts in dispute regarding the original incident.
Second, there are pending or anticipated events about which the media can speculate ceaselessly:
What will happen next?
When will it happen?
What will happen after it happens?
Third, there are swirling controversies pertaining to perennially hot themes such as
race, gender, sex, class and power.
And fourth,
there are vibrant characters on hand to expound, expand and suck up airtime
The Simpson investigation and trial were not explicitly political, but they brought serious questions to the public square and became a cause célèbre for every media outlet.
In the Sherrod storm, politics is, of course, directly involved, bringing a patina of legitimacy to the incessant news coverage.
And that explains why the firing of Sherrod last week paralyzed the Obama Administration and completely overwhelmed coverage of more important matters, such as the President's signing of the financial-regulation law, Washington's debates over how to deal with unemployment, major developments regarding Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq and about a dozen other truly significant stories.
Just as there was something intrinsically interesting about one of America's best-known and best-liked athletes being charged with a brutal double murder,
the craven sacking of Sherrod contained some elements that are undeniably compelling.
And both stories involved racial elements that increased their news velocity.
But the coverage of both sagas — Simpson's, literally, for years; Sherrod's for the better part of a week — was insanely overblown. T
he Sherrod story is a reminder — much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media.
In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny.
Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention.
Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.
So the news-and-information conveyor belt moves stories like the Sherrod case from Point A to Point Z without any of the standards or norms of traditional journalism,
not only resulting in grievous harm to the apparently blameless, such as Sherrod, but also crowding out news about virtually anything else.
The endless obsession with the Simpson story was absurd and gluttonous, and the pattern has been reproduced countless times since (the death of Anna Nicole Smith, the Gary Condit–Chandra Levy mystery, the ongoing Rod Blagojevich soap opera),
but the Sherrod story may be the low point of this phenomenon because of its illegitimate origins.
Andrew Breitbart, a conservative firebrand with a record of selectively editing video for partisan advantage, used a misleading snippet to produce a chain reaction that embarrassed the old media, the NAACP and the President of the United States — all of which led to even more content generated, rehashed, debated and mulched.
At a time when the country faces real challenges, with major elections coming up in November, did the nation really want to spend a week on this? Presidential advisers, including Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, who have earned virtual Ph.D.s in such political-media complexities, were on one level as seemingly powerless to stop the whole mess from spiraling out of control as were their predecessors in the Clinton and Bush White Houses. But the Obama Administration took the critical and alarming step of bowing to the expectations of the right and forcing Sherrod out of her job before completing even the most cursory investigation.
Gibbs and other officials publicly stopped short of saying it was all the media's fault, but they certainly suggested something very close to that. There is enough blame to go around. The new-media genie is not going back into the bottle; there are no easy solutions for how to end the dynamic unleashed by Orenthal James Simpson and his motley band of abettors, accusers, analysts and voyeurs.
But all of us who are involved in politics and media should take a moment to recognize that we have hit a low point. And let all of us resolve that, having hit bottom, it is time to start climbing out of the pit
Yet...he rarely chooses to display his impressive debating skills with an oh-so-eager White House press corps, CA.
Go figure...
They would just LOVE to debate him.
Mixed Bag:
A poor comeback Mixed Bag. You know as well as I do that a news conference is not the place for a debate, that is unless you want to change the format and allow Obama to ask any reporter asking questions or pressing him on how he intends to handle an issue the same questions, and require that the reporter is expected to offer some kind of rational and contributory reply in detail. I wonder how many reporter's would be willing to allow for that kind of exchange?
Of course we all know that is not how press conferences are structured, they are not debates.
Mixed,
Actually they don’t like to question him because his answers are too long and detailed unlike Bush’s one-liners. They only get in 6 to 8 questions in the hour allocated and many miss out on air time which is their justification for keeping their job. Then they are expected to report in a minute or less or what the President said.
If he doesn’t hold a press conference then they don’t have to worry about not getting their face time.
I remember when the economy tanked and John McCain wanted to cancel the debate. Then Democratic nominee Obama told then Republican nominee that he was going to have to learn to do more than one thing if he wanted to be President.
Of course when they had a meeting @ the House White to decide what course of action needed to be taken, Senator McCain had no answers. Meanwhile -
"Obama’s aggressive posture marks an evolution inside his transition team since the immediate aftermath of the Nov. 4 election.
"He offered the all-important job of Treasury secretary to a pragmatic and experienced regulator, Tim Geithner, and reached out to former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton to tap an experienced figure known around the world as the country’s top diplomat. After the Geithner selection was reported Friday, the Dow Jones soared nearly 500 points.
On Monday, the president-elect will emerge from two weeks of near-seclusion to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his economics team for a news conference that aides hope will help restore calm."
I'm wounded, CA...but prepared to soldier on, my friend.
That said...how do you account for President Obama's reluctance to engage in the back-and-forth with the press that any POTUS, convinced of the righteousness and efficacy of his Administration's policies and deeply held convictions (not to mention a deeply-held belief in his own brilliant, even formidable debating skills), should be eager to embrace?
We know that President Obama is way smarter than a fifth-grader, Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, and Major Garrett...right?
One of the jobs the President has saved is that of Robert Gibbs...his continued employment is in jeopardy if Obama ever decides to start talking to the White House press corps again.
I read somewhere that after the election, President-Elect Obama was in constant contact with Treasury Secretary Paulson concerning the TARP monies that were being disseminated to the banks at the time.
My understanding of this time was that the President-Elect was MORE engaged in handlnig the problem than the President was. It is my impression that President Bush really did not know what to do to stem the coming financial catastrophe and allowed the President-Elect to call the shots in that case.
It looks like President Bush could not give the keys to the country to then President-Elect Obama fast enough.
I am pretty sure that this account was in a book aboutthe election, but does anyone know if this account is 1) true and 2) which book was it in?
I bring this up because we are talking about the President's appearance on the view and how he is able to handle almost any question that is posed to him.
Pietro, I had heard that as well but I can't remember where I heard it. Someone either mentioned it to me or I read it somewhere, just within the past week actually.
Pietro ~ Don't let that be too widely known. All the more excuse for the republicans to blame the whole financial crisis on him ... notwithstanding that it was already a crisis when he first encountered it.
Bag Boy ~ Heck, YOU'RE smarter than Chuck Todd. How tough can that be?
Chuckie T...my profound apologies.
Anna Molly's wrath is primarily directed at me.
Sorry to put you in the middle of this.
Mixed Bag: If you remember correctly Bush would only take pre-screened questions to answer from anyone at anytime.
Mixed Bag:
Do you really think Obama is afraid to go before reporters and to answer their questions, that their questions would be too hard to handle, or at least to use rhetoric in reply to skirt around the questions as those past Presidents who held more press conferences tended to do?
If Obama is scheduling fewer press conferences than other past Presidents there is a reason I'm sure. But I hardly think the reason is because he can't handle their questions or that he is unwilling to mix it up with them if that is what they want. I'm of the opinion that this administration decided long ago to communicate it's positions by other means besides (and in addition too) press conferences. That is their right to do so without folks thinking there is some kind of conspiracy to aviod the press because they are scared of them.
CA-
Yes...I do.
Wrath? LoL As always, in your dreams, Bag Boy.
To Beverly in Chicago:
You obviously don't sign anybody elses paycheck. How can you say he 'loves' his country when he snubs his nose at those that make the country work, I.E. the private sector employers. You must think money that the feds print is the same as money that is earned. When bread is 20$ a loaf will you have the integrity to eat your words? Further if he doesn't care about enforcing the law re: illegal aliens as the law requres (read the constitution), why should those of us who feed this country care about following the law, especially re: paying our taxes? You are obviously swayed by a smooth talking politically correct rhetoritician, and your ilk should not be allowed to participate politically....it's like putting a gun in the hands of a child. Start a business if you can, employ some people, and then see how you feel about 'Boma and the feds!
Robodoc
Hey- this post reminds me-
All those jobs that WOULD be created IF the wealthy ones could only keep their Bush tax-breaks-
Where are they (the jobs)? I mean, those breaks haven't expired just yet have they? Here's the deal: once corporate America found out they could hire illegas at bargain rates, they did it. For years. THEN, once they figured out it would be even better to outsource jobs overseas, they did that. Their tax breaks likely DID help hire more workers, just not HERE. Why the hell should we subsidize that??
And, why is it so hard for fellow Americans, even though they be Republicans, to say 'enough!"?
The real problem won't be resolved until America will pay more for goods produced in America. I face it in my business everyday. People are willing to buy things from China it it means it will save 2%. We have 10 Manufacturing Facilities in the US that feed thousands of families, but the purchasing managers we sell to go for lowest price.
I'm not a protectionist, and I don't think we should have tariffs, but in my opinion nothing changes until the consumer of the products chooses a different evaluation of their purchasing decisions other than initial cost.
drive-thru, you are so right.
So what are the excuses the liberals are telling us today when it comes (lack of) job creation? 1) The evil Bush tax cuts caused the problem 2) The evil corporations are hoarding billions of dollars and not hiring 3) The evil corporations want Obama to fail 4) The evil Republicans won't vote for our socialistic programs.
Yes'sir, always an excuse for the Obama crowd.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/15/884730/-Blame-Businesses-For-Not-Hiring
It was the REPUBLICANS who denied the help to the small businesses. Obama and his team are supporting it. Small businesses where I live are starting up, running well, and a few fail as normal. Maybe where you live the economic recovery is slower than where I live. Our company is hiring and "green"energy businesses are expanding. Expanding means good paying jobs. Since most of the jobs lost were lost during the Administration of George W. Bush, tell us what Mr. Bush did to help the situation. Those tax breaks to the wealthy didn't work but that is all they offered.
I'm no economist, but I'm thinking the problem is a lot bigger than tax cuts. Too many people are out of work. People that are out of work buy less goods and services. If I was a business owner, I wouldn't hire more people and ramp up producion just because I got a tax break, I'd ramp up production when demand called for it. I sure as heck don't care if the demand, when it comes, is from overseas markets instead of here. Hell, my work force is already over there anyway, and I'd just save more in costs to get the stuff back over here to sell. I make much more money, so screw the American worker. Who need's 'em. BUT- would I turn down a tax break? Hell no I wouldn't. Not as long as the Tea Bag Republicans want me to have it.
And for some reason, Tea Bagers and other Republicans think this is better for all of us.
And JoAnna- I gotta admit: I got one nut the size of a hay-seed, but the other one's a little-bitty devil.
Doorknob.
So drive-thru, take off that Mickey-D's paper hat of yours and get out there to start your business! Don't be a loser to the The Man all your life, be a man, at least for once in you life, and start that wonderful business model of yours. My bet is you won't last a week, basically because you're weak. You talk a good game, but that's typical of liberals. All hat, no cattle, as it were.
On the other hand, maybe you should just keep begging the government to give you things. It doesn't pay as well, but that career path gives you time to stay home and watch The View with your sheep, ehh, "girlfriends".
This reply makes no sense whatsoever as to what I posted.
Try and pay attention, will you?
All hat, no cattle? Guilty as charged. Coming from the city, this only makes sense.
In her Easter bonnet ....
But what's your excuse, JoAnna?
Ever wonder where the dopes of nope get their talking points.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. - Adolf Hitler
Right on the Money jomama72! It's common knowledge that the dumbest of our society support the facist racist righty whities! I mean what kind of idiot would think they could get an education from Beckerhead University except a Braindead Beckerhead.
jomama,
About Hitler and the dopes of nope:
What were Hitler's social issues?
National Socialist German Workers Party? What party is associated with socialism and workers party/unions?
The Nazis were for nationalized health care. They were pro-abortion and pro-gun control. They were anti-church and wanted to do away with such things as Nativity scenes, etc. They believed in heavily taxing inheritance.
They believed nutrition and health were not private matters. They were anti-smoking. They had health drives that foreshadowed today's crusades against junk food and processed food. Hitler wanted to move the nation towards a more organic and/or vegetarian diet. Himmler was a certified animal rights activist. Hess championed homeopathy and herbal remedies.
Hitler's genius lay in his realization that people wanted to rally to ideas and symbols and that his greatest asset was his exceptional oratory skills and public speaking ability. His sharpest criticism of others was often not their ideas, but their speaking ability. (Sounds just like Bush, huh.)
The Nazis rose to power exploiting anti-capitalist rhetoric and the need to transcend notions of class.
Above all, they believed in the state not the individual, or family.
Does the above remind sane people of the right, or is it identified more often with some other party?
PS I know, I know, like your last brilliant retort - bob STFU
Bob you DF, All aboard for Beckistan and the new university, I would give a detailed response , however "stupid can't be fixed" we are going to beat the nope out of you dopes come November. Fear, hate, the blacks, browns, greens, yellows, john b oranges, greys are coming for the white people, Glen, Rush, Sean, Fix news and the sh*t eating dogs called reporters what are we to do...heeeelp.
jomama,
But the reality is you can't..... and that's why your retort amounted to nothing more than a histrionic post menopausal mental menstruation.
Obama made a fool of Blonde Bozo Elisabeth Hasselbeck, one of the dumbest women on tv. So funny that Clueless Blonde Bozo Sleazy Liz served up a softball question to Obama who hit it out of the park. Good that Obama got a lot of exposure from The View. Why do they call it The View? Could it be all the leg they show to attract male viewers?
Too bad Obama didn't mention the repugnant ones wanting to stop the program to help 9/11 responders and that none of the Liberal gals asked that important question. Time for Democrats to bash the dopes of nope for hating the 9/11 responders so much when the 9/11 responders risked their lives and now their health to save so many that tragic day. Time for Democrats to expose the repugnant ones for calling the program to help the 9/11 repsonders as another massive entitlement program, make 9/11 work for us now.
Save the 9/11 Responders!
"Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible."
I absolutely agree. As I have said many times, I don't have cable or listen to talk radio, so why is it I know all about Sarah Palin's tweets of misinformation, and Hannity's opinions and Glenn Beck's tears? The old media makes sure I stay well informed of the doings of these drama queens! Meanwhile...how many American TV viewers know who Rachel Maddow is?
Really!? Isn't this the same diatribe that's been pumped out for years. Was this really worth his marked absence as "Honorary Chair" for the Boy Scout Jamboree? Many of the points that triggered his election have been taught, practiced, and shared world-wide by scouters everywhere. Review the scout oath, the scout law. These are words to live by and mark one's character for life. While we seek change can we not also change back to time honored traditions like honesty, responsibility for your own actions, and hard work. These are concepts that if taught (as in scouting) ensure the integrity of this once great nation. It's one thing to talk about investing in the youth of America, and another to show how important they really are by actually showing up!
Dear Eagle Scout Dad: Due to the systemic discrimination practiced by the BSA, I don't believe any of our Presidents should be associated with it. As long as atheists and gay young men are denied entry to scouting, a point should be made by the leadership of this country to disavow it. And I say that as a wife of an Eagle Scout who agrees with me. We did not encourage our children to be members, and they understood why.
Scouting is an organization that has a foundation in a belief larger than the individual. Not any single religion, but all religions. If an athiest, by thier own admission, does not share that belief, that is thier right. We are not, by our faith, the center of the universe. Religous faith and obedience is the basis of the civil laws that govern us. It is that which creates an orderly society. In recent years as this has been undermined and subverted, society continues to suffer and decline without a commonality we can agree and adhere to. As to the subject of sexuality - nowhere does Scouting advocate a sexual preferance. I have had many gay friends, some of which were scout leaders. Although it was commonly known thier INDIVIDUAL preferance, it was not, nor should it have been discussed in any official capacity. That is and should be the parent's RESPONSIBILTY. No one gay or straight or gay should be difined by the person they sleep with.
It is scouting's right to believe whatever they want. As long as they understand that they are a private organization, not expecting the government to show support. I think the Presidents should divorce themselves from this organization.
Divorce is an interesting choice of words. Are we not divisive enough as a nation? We are the government! We should extend support to agencies that offer aid, comfort, and support to the communities they serve. If things aren't to your liking,educate but at the same time don't close your self off from learning something as well. It is easy to focus frustration on a high profile organization, but really doesn't it belong to all of us. As long as there are topics such as this that we allow to divide us, we will never have the strength as a nation of truly free citizens. I can accept that there are things that I see differently than others, but it is that acceptance that makes me free.
Divorce and divisive are not similar words. It is an interesting theory that BSA offers comfort and support to communities when some children and adults are not allowed to be involved. You can't have this both ways. BSA can set whatever rules it wants as a private organization. It cannot expect govt. support for discrimination.
Children are not excluded because they may consider themselves gay. At scouting age it inappropriate to force them into any classification sexually. A scout can be held accountable for sexual behavior in general. As for adult leaders, I say again, that is their business, just as my marriage is mine. Problems arise regarding gay leaders when over reactive parents intercede, I would also be quick to add that most of the time these are the parents that use BSA as a child care alternative and who seldom, if ever, "show-up".
At 73 years of age, one of my greatest regrets is that I never had the opportunity to be in scouting buy my wife and I are proud of the fact that our eldest son is an Eagle and that one of his children has chosen to follow him on this path. If you know the Scout Promise and the Scout Oath, you know full well that the goal of scouting is to provide our country with a ready pool of patriots and proven leaders. The eagle is something to be honored, not used as a political tool.
And in case you aren't aware of the statistic, the Eagle award is something recognized as the proof of a young man's ability to "stay the course" of reaching a long term goal.
Palin can debate Obama in 2012; wearing an earpiece linked to Limbaugh in the background. Wonder how that exotic colorful parrot might lose her feathers. To imagine a bird naked without feathers. wow.
And people think the Gettysburg Address was a paragon of brevity.
The reason I voted for Obama is because he was the most intelligent, most well spoken and having listened to all the candidates was the most sensible. Everyone in this country no matter what their party affiliation knows the country was in terrible shape in many ways due mostly to the republican president for 8 years, the blunders they made, the constant support to oil, big business and let's not forget the unnecessary war as well all the money he gave to the rich people in tax breaks. I think our president is doing a remarkable job considering all the mess he came into office with in other words inheriting the
blunders of the republican party for the most part. Having said that their are alot of good republicans
However as far as I am concerned republicans have been the party of no no and more no since he took office. Republicans and Democrats all have to work together for the people. That's why all of us people
have to respect each other and try and get along as well. Seems to me alot of people forgot that we are all americans. We are still in a tight spot with unemployment, real estate and need lots of work to get done in the areas of energy, education and diplomacy here and abroad.
I refuse to think it makes any sense at all to criticize this president or to blame him for all the blunders of the past which is what got our country in the mess its been in. You people that constantly make fun of Obama because he is a democrat or because he is african american need to consider the people you put into office before him.
A very large part of the mess we are in is you people that misrepresent the facts. You take advantage of people that are good people. When you tell a lie and get people to believe it then that helps make messes just like the mess we are all in now. It creates negativity. People are afraid to spend money now because of all the misrepresentation of the facts. Business owners are afraid to hire more people even when they could easily afford too and as well make a good profit. You spend your time making fun, poking at the wrong person trying to convince people it is the Presidents fault. The mess we we are all in right now
was already here before he took office. To constantly embark on a slam campaign does nothing but make it worse than it already is. What you should be doing is working together with all americans to embark on change that is positive as well prosperous. First thing we need to do is identify the facts, study the existing remedies and offer solutions that are proven to work. We have to all stick together and work this all out together. Slamming this President for all the past mistakes of both parties is not a solution.
Now all of you reading this should remember how the mess we are in got to be such a big mess.
First of all the tax cuts for the rich. Remember we had a huge surplus of cash in the bank as a nation.
95% of that got gave away to the rich which is less than 5% of the population of our country.
Now don't you think we could use that money now if it wasn't given away to people who did not ever
need it in the first place?
Secondly when the republicans created the largest boom in the size of the federal government in the history of our nation was that being conservative?
Thirdly when no practical laws were created and enacted to monitor and police banks, lending institutions,
political money raising, lobbying entities, pharmaceutical and insurance companies what were we all to expect that they would all do the right thing?
Come on everybody let's all look at the facts. We are all tired of the crap whether we are affiliated with
republicans, democrats or otherwise. All I know is if we all don't start checking our facts and working together then the mess is sure to get worse just from stupidity, ignorance and negativity.
Let's all first of all count our blessings with what we still have and work together to help each other out.
Love your neighbor as yourself. When I say that I hope most of you will agree that this president has alot of inherited problems on his plate. I believe if we all would give him credit where its due we could move forward alot more quickly.
I will cite a very good and credible example.
I was raised on a farm and when I was young attended the NRA class for gun safety.
I also voted for Obama. One of the first things I noticed was all the rednecks were preaching he is gonna take away my gun. Well now I have bought 3 more guns since he got elected. I really don't know where
the rednecks are coming from. Rumor, inuendo and hearsay.
Again let's all gather the facts and work together with what we have to work with.
We are all americans. Let's all start acting like americans and work togetherl. I believe with all my heart
that working together is what made our nation great.
What is interesting is that those same people in the party of NO complained that anyone who didn't fall in line and not question President Bush were unpatriotic. They said it wasn't because one could agree or disagree with the President but because he was the President. Now they have no problem disagreeing with President Obama and think it is patriotic. Such hypocrites.
Great post Wayne, How about this from Colbert "Ichabod Crane's banshee widow." Who should we pin this moniker on, any thoughts FR..LOL. I have somebody in mind..lol.
To CA, Tuscaloosa, AL:
Are you in a parallel universe? Even the White House Press core is frustrated with Obama's need to controll and choreograph his interviews. He has not been in front of a true town hall meeting or investigational journalist in months! If he had to debate anybody on his before and after statements and reality he would go down in flames. You are obviously emotionally invested in this man to extent that some conservatives were invested in Bush despite all evidence that he (and Obama) is NOT what his press releases said about him. This is NOT a religion. it's OK to take him off the pedastle.
Robodoc
Robodoc,
New here at FR?
Robodoc ~ Agreed as to the pedestal. More room for me.
I taped the show because I had errands to run. I watched when I got home and enjoyed it. It was refreshing to see a President appearing on a show that millions watch every day--the crowd obviously loved it as did the hosts.
What I did find amusing is Elizabeth's question parroted what the GOP claims--the standard 8% unemployment followed by the stimulus was supposed to save and create jobs. Loved his answer--even John McCain's economist said it would have been worse without the stimulus and; well, the people whose jobs were saved are happy (or words similar).
They blocked off the street from Central park to Broadway for the motorcade. I was coming from "Freud's Last Session", a play at the "Y" on 64th and CPW...So that's what the president was doing there...
He was having a session with Sigmund Freud? Weird. He seems pretty well adjusted ... if you know what I mean. But what were YOU doing there? Need to work out some of those conflicted personality issues?
If someone knows how i can get a job in afghanistan, please email me or if any company is looking for a good worker , i am ready to go. eltonburgess1957@yahoo.com