Media find Obama news conference insufficiently entertaining
SUMMARY: Several media outlets echoed the assertion of a Drudge Report headline that President Obama's March 24 press conference was "boring."
Discussing President Obama's then-upcoming press conference on the March 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, when asked what he was looking for, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes stated: "I hope there are no more of these five-minute answers. It's hard to stay awake." Subsequently, during the press conference, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted the headline "Being Boring" below a picture of Obama on his website. Drudge's headline initially did not link to an analysis by Drudge or to any articles but instead linked back to the Drudge Report homepage. After the press conference ended, Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity echoed Drudge, with O'Reilly calling Obama's performance "dull and repetitive," and Hannity calling it "boring and dull and uninspiring and unconvincing."
A March 24 New York Times article, a March 25 Los Angeles Times blog post, and a March 25 New York Daily News article also echoed this theme.
By 8:17 p.m. ET, Drudge posted the following headline on his website:
Initially, Drudge's headline linked only to the Drudge Report homepage, Drudgereport.com. By 9:41 p.m. ET, Drudge had replaced the Drudgereport.com link with a link to an "analysis" of the press conference by Associated Press Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier.
Subsequently, on the March 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said, "While the president was authoritative tonight, he was also dull and repetitive. Only a few times did he connect with the folks." After airing a portion of Obama's remarks from the conference, O'Reilly added, "But most of the time President Obama gave long-winded answers and evaded direct questions."
On the March 24 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity called Obama "boring and dull and uninspiring and unconvincing." Fox Business Network anchor Alexis Glick later said, "It was not a good night. It was not a great night for them. I mean, there's some speculation, obviously, that they wanted it to be dull and dry and without any fanfare."
Additionally, in a March 24 article, New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney wrote that Obama "sound[ed] like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell." Similarly, in a March 25 post on the Los Angeles Times' Top of the Ticket blog, Andrew Malcolm wrote: "Professor Barack Obama showed up. And if you remember one of those required college lecture courses in the large auditorium at 8:10 a.m. listening to a droning don, and how it felt, slumped in the cushy seats having skipped breakfast for an extra 13 minutes of ZZZZ." Additionally, a March 25 Daily News article -- headlined "President Obama's dull delivery during press conference fails to inspire" -- reported: "President Obama feels your pain -- and your anger -- but that assumes you have any feeling at all after his less-than-electrifying press conference Tuesday night."
From The New York Times article:
For just under an hour on Tuesday night, Americans saw not the fiery and inspirational speaker who riveted the nation in his address to Congress last month, or the conversational president who warmly engaged Americans in talks across the country, or even the jaunty and jokey president who turned up on Jay Leno.
Instead, in his second prime-time news conference from the White House, it was Barack Obama the lecturer, a familiar character from early in the campaign. Placid and unsmiling, he was the professor in chief, offering familiar arguments in long paragraphs -- often introduced with the phrase, "as I said before" -- sounding like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell.
[...]
This was Mr. Obama as more enervating than energizing, a reminder of the way he could be in his early days as a presidential candidate, before he became defined by rapturous crowds.
"He doesn't seem to emote any real urgency or anger," said Matthew Dowd, a former Republican strategist who has often been complimentary of the new president. "So at times it comes across as a bit distant and intellectual."
From Malcolm's Los Angeles Times blog post:
Tuesday morning The Ticket examined the White House's current political strategy and asked the question who would show up at Barack Obama's second nationally-televised news conference that evening: the president or the senator?
The answer: Neither.
Professor Barack Obama showed up.
And if you remember one of those required college lecture courses in the large auditorium at 8:10 a.m. listening to a droning don, and how it felt, slumped in the cushy seats having skipped breakfast for an extra 13 minutes of ZZZZ.
From the Daily News article:
President Obama feels your pain -- and your anger -- but that assumes you have any feeling at all after his less-than-electrifying press conference Tuesday night.
Obama used his second prime-time news conference to acknowledge disgust over AIG bonuses, but mostly he somberly urged Americans to be patient and give his multipronged economic blueprint a chance to work.
"I am as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of those very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees," Obama told reporters. "But one of the most important lessons to learn from this crisis is that our economy only works if we recognize that we are all in this together."
For Obama, it was a delicate balancing act -- how to identify with the rage many Americans feel over Wall Street's excesses and trillions in new government bailout spending, while at the same time asking voters to move beyond the fury to something more constructive.
[...]
Having been chided for laughing off some serious questions on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Obama seemed intent on stifling virtually all emotion -- and running out the clock with a flurry of wonkish explainers and recycled answers.
"He's a new President, but it was the same old, same old," said University of Virginia political science Prof. Larry Sabato. "There just wasn't much there."
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: I want to go down the line quickly about the press conference tonight, his -- the president's second solo news conference. What are you are looking for, Fred?
BARNES: I hope there are no more of these five-minute answers. It's hard to stay awake.
NINA EASTON (Fortune Washington editor): He -- hard to follow that one.
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Thank you for watching us tonight for this special edition of The Factor analyzing the president's press conference. We'll also have a report from Jesse Watters on a Florida judge who released a convicted sex predator.
But first the "Talking Points Memo," the good and bad of Barack Obama's joust with the press. First of all, the press conference was designed to rally support for Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion, with a T, dollar budget, which has frightened many members of Congress. That kind of spending could lead to bankruptcy if the economy continues to be weak.
While the president was authoritative tonight, he was also dull and repetitive. Only a few times did he connect with the folks. Here's one of them.
OBAMA [video clip]: With respect to the American people, I think folks are sacrificing left and right. I mean, you've got a lot of parents who are cutting back on everything to make sure that their kids can still go to college. You've got workers who are deciding to cut an entire day -- an entire day's worth of pay so that their fellow coworkers aren't laid off. I think that across the board people are making adjustments large and small to accommodate the fact that we're in very difficult times right now.
O'REILLY: But most of the time President Obama gave long-winded answers and evaded direct questions. Here's an example of that.
[begin video clip]
JAKE TAPPER (ABC News correspondent): Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap and trade?
OBAMA: Well, I've emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there are serious efforts at health care reform and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path.
I've said that we've got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: Heard it all before. The president went on and on never answering that question.
"Talking Points" suspects many Americans missed the singing on American Idol tonight, but there was some dancing as the president just demonstrated, just a little press conference levity. All in all, pretty much same old stuff. Important stuff, but not much new in his presentation. That is the "Memo."
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And joining me tonight is Alexis Glick from the Fox Business Network, Stephen Moore from The Wall Street Journal. Now, Alexis, I'm going to start with you. It's an ongoing debate. Listen, look, first of all, you take that teleprompter away. Besides being boring and dull and uninspiring and unconvincing, you know, he cannot really pull it off -- and even at his opening remarks on a teleprompter way out there, he can't pull it off without a prompter.
GLICK: It was not a good night. It was not a great night for them. I mean, there's some speculation, obviously, that they wanted it to be dull and dry and without any fanfare. I thought it was very interesting who he chose to call on, who he chose not to call on.
Gee, it's a shame faux finds legitimacy, intellect and competence "boring".
After the past eight years, we've had enough excitement.
Maybe the media is reporting that the conference was boring because it WAS.
Obama's opener was nothing we haven't heard in the last month or so. The journalists' questions were dull (for the most part; exceptions: Tapper and the CNN guy). And Obama's answers appeared "mailed in"; in other words, he repeated many of the tired themes that we've heard since January. Even Obama himself did not appear too inspired himself last night; he looked like he needed a good night's sleep. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
In other words, "dull."
Well, when the excitement of the previous eight years was to see just how badly the President would mangle the English language and try to cover up the fact that he was snockered to the gills, I guess facts from an informed President would be boring.
Especially to those who thought W was an intellectual.
"snockered to the gills"? You apparantly don't have anything intelligent to say so you toss out these moronic accusations. G.W. was an exceptionally poor public speaker so you don't have to accuse him of being intoxicated. You are the poster child for trolling.
It is well known that Dubya was hitting the bottle again!
We don't pay the president of the United States to entertain us. Besides, he's probably tired. He has been more transparent than any president that I know. Maybe he should go off the set for about a month or two. Oh, but then people woulld complain about that.
I can't believe how many complaints are being lodged against this man. It doesn't make a difference what he does, someone is going to complain. Now he's boring. Go rent a movie.
It was boring and it was things we heard before because the media keeps covering the wrong things and the white house press keeps asking the same boring questions. Why didn't anyone ask why Obama isn't seriously considering universal single payer healthcare? or why he is supporting Bush DOJ positions on eavesdropping, wiretapping, trying terrorists in U.S. courts, executive powers, etc.? Or how he feels about $90 billion in AIG bail out money going to European banks? Or what he is doing about the atrocities inflicted upon the Palesinians by the Israelis in the recent crack down on the Hamas in the Gaza Strip? Or about the Popes position on condoms in Africa not being effective against AIDS?
It was boring because our press corp and our media are ignorant, crass and only politically motivated. Just like the GOP!
You're right, shoe . . . perhaps Obama should've spiced it up by doing like his predecessor, and telling a fart joke - or looking around saying "those WMDs have got to be SOMEWHERE!!"
Sorry, shoes and all the media who found this "boring" . . . we have an ADULT in the White House now, not an overaged frat boy . . . as he said during his inaugural address, its time to put away childish things . . . so, if its entertainment you want, tune in to "American Idol" . . .
Obama, long winded?
Hey Bill, have you ever watched yourself on the Factor?
Hey you 'morans' in the media, wake up. Obama doesn't hold these pressers for your f'in 'entertainment'. This isn't TMZ, folks.
Wait a minute. I thought Obama couldn't talk without a teleprompter. But now he's professorial.
And this isn't a campaign speech. It's a press conference. The point is to answer questions about policies and plans, not to inspire people. If you can criticize someone for being boring at a press conference, you can pretty much criticize them for anything. Which is exactly the idea, I have to believe.
His opening remarks were on the telepmompter, so, obviously he still needs it. "The point is to answer questions", so why did he not answer them?
Asked and answered elsewhere on this very site. I didn't expect you to understand the answer, though, so I'm not surprised you brought it up yet again.
His opening remarks were on the telepmompter, so, obviously he still needs it
He uses the teleprompter to stay on message and be succinct.
I'm curious what the point here is-- that Obama NEEDS the teleprompter because he's inarticulate? As someone else pointed out, when he explains thing patiently WITHOUT a teleprompter, he gets criticized for that !
The guy just can't win, can he? The delightful thing is, all this harassment merely makes him MORE popular-- people see through it and think it's unfair.
Yeah, his popularity is soaring. Oh, wait, it is going down everyday! Maybe if you spent some time reading REAL news you would know that.
He's got a 60% approval rating; up from 58%.
"Why did he not answer them?"
He answered all of them but two. As for those two, I'm going to guess that for Jake Tapper's question, Obama didn't want to be trapped into laying down a gauntlet to the Senate Dems in public, preferring to keep it "in house." As for Ed Henry's question, I suspect Obama considered it a) stupid, b) played out, and c) also a trap. See my scorecard below. If you disagree with my assessment, I'd be delighted to debate the finer points. Because if you disagree with my assessment, you'll be easily proven wrong.
Bite me on the teleprompter non-issue, please. It's a red herring from a party with nothing better to criticize. Have you ever given a speech at all? I have given hundreds, using notes. But, then, no one is going to grab a single instance of inarticulate thought and beat me over the head with it in the national news for weeks, months and years on end. Using a teleprompter to ensure that he says exactly what he means and no more or less is what all presidents are driven to by the ravenous press and you political hacks! Bush should have been using one, but I gather he couldn't metaphorically chew gum and walk, so I guess that would have been too difficult.
So, why is a problem to those scoff because Obama uses a telepromter.
All the "entertainers" use teleprompters. Bill O, Keith O, Hannity.
GET A LIFE!
What is more interesting about this particular assessment, is that this is the only criticism they seem to be able to come up with. Obama's "professorial" press conference essentially succeeded in disallowing the usual out of context disingenious criticisms from O'Reilly and others on the far right. I loved the way he was pro active in pointing out that he inherited a 1.3 trillion deficit and his explanation of how a 3/10 of one percent difference in growth estimates give such wide discrepencies in the CBO's and the administrations future deficit estimates 5 years out. Now, if Obama had failed to expertly explain this, you can bet that DildoReilly and his cohorts would be clinging to the CBO's numbers as gospel. Those are just a few examples, but I believe that a more in depth analysis of Obama's words would yield numerous other pre-emptive defense mechanisms against the usual far right dishonest commentary.
So what do they do? They attack him for being boring. What is hilarious about this is that only a week ago they were all attacking Obama for not being boring. How many attacks did we hear from the right about Obama going on Leno, having town halls, being out in front of the cameras? And now when he effectively and expertly explains his policies to the people in a way that prevents his words from being misconstrued, the idiots on the right have to attack him for something; so what people get is hours of "he's boring." Truly pitiful.
I must say that in my lifetime I have never seen a politician be able to arouse such petty attacks because he leaves no room for substantive attacks. It is truly amazing to watch.
Yeah, he's either too serious and professorial, or he laughs too much in this time of tragedy.
Face it-- these critics are jerks who are out to see him fail. The great thing is-- NOBODY'S LISTENING TO THEM !
I can only imagine that if he did anything different that he would be disrespectful to his duties or failing to carry the gravitas a leader should (especially after Bush), etc. It reminds me of the criticism that Obama was too fit before the election. As if we wouldn't be hearing fat jokes if he wasn't in good shape or something. No matter what he does, it's wrong for some reason or other.
I wish I could believe that there's anything anyone could do to prevent dishonest criticism. The "boring" criticism suggests they can't find much else to say, though, so maybe pre-emptive defense mechanisms can work. It's nice to make partisan opponents work harder, at the very least.
I don't think Obama purposely chooses his words solely for such a reason, but what I do think is that he is masterful at defining his viewpoint in a way which certainly inhibits dishonest criticism. As you pointed out above, the "boring" criticism suggests they can't find much else to say. I would submit that "not finding much else to say" other than ridiculous side show criticisms is quickly becoming the norm for the GOP. I do believe that, whether on purpose or not, Obama is succeeding in this pre-emptive defense against reasonable criticism. To be honest, I really haven't heard a Republican or far right wacko make a reasoned argument in rebuttal to Obama when he speaks. If there has been such a rebuttal, nobody ever hears it, which of course lends more credence to the perception of Limbaugh being the leader of the Republican party.
well said!
Cf. this Sadly, No! post
Conservatalk: Obama is Boring
Translation: We have given up trying to critique Obama's policies on substance; having realized it's a losing proposition.
It would be nice if once in awhile he would answere a guestion instead off dodging
Hmm. Me think you a dodging off.
"It would be nice if once in awhile he would answere a guestion instead off dodging"
Hmm. Here's my scorecard:
Answered
AP on new authority sought by Bernanke and Geithner
Todd's embarrassing question on sacrifice
Chip Reid on budget deficits
Univision on the drug trade and border security
Stars and Stripes about military budget cuts
Major Garrett's xenophobic rant about China and Europe and world opinion of the US
Mike Allen's whine about rich people getting tax write-offs for being generous
Kevin Chapelle's question about the homeless
The surprised Ann Compton's question about race
Washington Times on whether Obama has personal moral issues with destroying embryos
AFP about the Israel-Palestine problem
Dodged
Jake Tapper on whether Obama would sign a budget w/o cap-and-trade
Ed Henry's petulant inquiry about why Obama didn't share his anger about AIG with the public sooner (snappy dodge though).
Wow. I don't think you agree with me about how often "once in a while" is.
thanks for the list! I agree, he didn't answer the stupid or politically motivated questions. And why should he?
I understood the answers to the questions and didn't find that he was dodging them at all. Besides, most of the questions he answered were answers he has given in the recent past in other media conferences. Not hard to follow.
Please point out to me exactly when Obama dodge a question?
Which question?
He's irrelevant to about 80% of the population who actually thinks. Which side are you on?
there is a point where one becomes so irrelevent that it crosses into the absurd......like drudge. he has crossed that point. and its so absurd you cannot help but bring him up to show how crazy neo cons are.
Actually, Matt Drudge has been irrelevant for years now. Thie only people who believe him nowadays are the knuckle-draggers who think World Nut Daily is a legitimate news source.
Yes, the idea that Drudge influenced the media to call Obama 'boring' completely refutes a column from five months earlier that pointed out that Drudge was unable to find interesting or significant stories to pimp showing Obama in an unfavorable light -- at least not true stories.
Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Or maybe he is just over your head. The adults seem to be able to follow along.
Boring? What exactly are you looking for in a presidential press conference? Excitement? Entertainment? Magic tricks?
Yes, these naysayers are looking for good ol' "Black Face" entertainment. Sorry, those days are LONG GONE. HahahaHeheheheHahahah!
Reagan could talk up a storm? I'm curious why you think Reagan held less than 6 press conferences per year and took questions while walking to a helicopter. I remember him being particularly confused and incoherent in his debate against Mondale, and that sort of behavior was certainly not unprecedented.
And remember, that helicopter often had its rotors still turning, allowing Ronnie to simply looks at the reporters, point at his ear and shrug his shoulders.
Exactly. I don't know where this guy is getting off at but one of the biggest criticisms of Reagan was his inability to effectively communicate in arenas such as a press conference. He was a master communicator throught the television medium. That, I think, cannot be argued. But to indicate that Reagan was this polished communicator at press conferences is laughable. My God, is this guy not old enough to remember the endless comedic material Reagan gave in these venues?
The reality here is that people like WorldlyMrR either cannot comprehend the intellectual content of Obama's words in that press conference or he can but can't bring himself to admit it, so he must listen to what his right wing masters have to say so he can come here and regurgitate it as if it was original thought.
Budget talk is boring after so much repetition, but inarticulate? Obama is most certainly not.
There is no one by that name at MSNBC.
E R W, the roving, trolling spellchecker.
.....you could be a cyber pal and spell it correctly for him.
I'm sure the misspelling was intentional just as The Not-So Great One calling him 'Overbite' is intentional. But thanks for your effort.
Bush was painful to watch and BHO without a teleprompter is absolutely inarticulate, rambling and boring.
That's completely absurd. Agree with you about KO, though-- he's an enemy of reason these days. Really unreliable.
I went to a then, candidate Obama rally and true the teleprompter was there, however, he never look at it once. How do I know? I was sitting three rows behind him and the teleprompter was facing me as he faced the majority of the audience. So I don't know if you want to use that as a barometer of measurement when speaking of a one's intellect or lack there of.
My reply to your point. Hahahahaha! HARVARD Graduate?! Hahahahaha! Don't be hatin' He only uses the tele-prompter because of people like you. "Inarticulate". Come on now. You can do better than that can't you? Hahaha. So sorry you couldn't understand his English.
well given that matt drudge is reporting this im not surprised its not exciting given he has no scandals to drag out
Obama isn't a tabloid president so their jets have been squelched.
Professors and their general demeanor do not fit in with the current tabloid culture of news. This may come off as harsh but we have a media culture that actually values ignorance, superficiality, and anti-intellectualism. And this fits right in with the rightwing plan - keep the masses ignorant and uneducated so they are under the complete control of the rightwing Masters. It worked very well under Bush for eight years but now that Obama is in the Masters are freaking out. Without having 'dunces' in charge their entire agenda has been wrecked. what we saw last night was a rightwing press corps foundering away with cheap shots and Obama handled it masterfully with grace and cool.
Right on. The press corp has dumbed themselves down for years and have trouble coming up with intelligent questions.
The Press Corps had to dumb themselves down to ask questions of George W.
The trouble for them is, the new so-called right-wing Masters are now the product of the old guard's efforts to keep the public ignorant, superficial and anti-intellectual. And those qualities, while valued by the older right-wing Masters for the populace, are exactly what is killing the party now that those who were the objects of those policies now try to inherit the party.
The Democreats have valued knowledge, depth, and thought, and they, and they saw through th eplan all along. The populace is now waking up to the misinformation spread by the GOP for so long, and that's why their Republican posteriors were handed to them in the last two elections.
These people must all be ADD.
Boring, inane questions get boring inane answers
Ha. "Being Boring" is a famous (and beautiful) song by Pet Shop Boys. Will Drudge ever come out of the closet?
Or out of the refrigerator, where the eggs are kept?
Yup - one of my favorite songs!
Honestly, who in the hell really cares about this aside from the hardcore wingers? I know Rush has been milking this teleprompter thing dry for laughs but all this shows is that the right doesn't have Jack when it comes to offering anything of substance to deal with our crises.
The bar is set pretty high when you do Leno and ESPN, then follow it up with a yuk-fest on 60mins.
Maybe next time Carville and Begalla could warm up the crowd with a little Stan and Ollie routine? Barry O'Gump could do a little soft-shoe as he walks to the podium?
Rock on comrades!
"The bar is set pretty high when you do Leno and ESPN, then follow it up with a yuk-fest on 60mins."
Funny, I do not recall seeing Bush do any appearances on those venues. In fact, I don't recall seeing Bush ever put himself out there like Obama does. Oh, with the exception of the screened events of course. What does that tell you about Bush and his confidence level?
QFT. It took nine months for Bush to finally go primetime with the press.
Yeah. And he was either buzzed or slightly medicated when he did it.
"Now watch this drive!"
Rabbit, Did you notice that Obamas' advisors were in the back of the room. When Bush was on stage, his advisors sat within ten feet of him off to his right side. Reminds me of SPIN CITY where Mike would have to run up to the the microphone from the mayor.
I haven't seen such a level of jealousy from the Talking Repulicons heads or their echoers like T-spoon Lickens above. The language that Obama uses doesn't compute in the Bushified or Hannitzed brains. Anyone who speaks real words just confuse them. They do not need explanations or substance, they just need to be TOLD how to think.
Imagine, 8 more years of this. They will never survive..invest in Loony Bins.
Oh yes. And no bulges in Obama's back either. And Obama wasn't medicated to boot! Amazing what a 180 we have now in the WH.
I'd invest in drug and alcohol rehab centers myself. And not just for the chattering class. I suspect we will be seeing higher rates of drunkenness and drug abuse among the Palinites.
That's because NO SITTING POTUS has done any appearances on a venue of those sorts. It was understood at one time (obviously not now) that it was beneath the dignity of the office.
What screened events do you allude too? As for O'Gump "putting" it out there, we'll see if he's still doing Leno if this economy doesn't pick up. I believe it was the Ragin Cajun that once said "it's the economy stupid". As goes the market so goes the poll numbers.
Stop being stupid. Screened events? What has happened to your memory... you do not remember those Bush rallies in which 'security' had to clear each person before entering the venue? You know, that Gestapo-like tactic of carefully screening out potential 'enemies' and stuff? Haven't seen any of that crap from Obama, haven't you?
Beneath the dignity of the office? Oh, sure. So going on late-night TV, ESPN, and 60 Minutes - a news magazine, btw - is beneath the dignity of the office but all the garbage that Bush and Cheney - who was SUPPOSED to have limited power, go read your Constitution - pulled, all the lies, all the deaths - both US military and Iraqi civilian - all the assaults on liberty, all the incompetence ala Katrina, etc. oh, those get a free pass, right? Nothing wrong there, right? Well within the dignity of the office, right?
You wingers literally make me sick.
I remember someone not allowed into a Bush "rally" because he had some kind of democratic bumper sticker on his car.
And Cheney appeared on Limbaugh??? DUH
"And Cheney appeared on Limbaugh??? DUH"
A double insult to the dignity of all Americans!
Sickly rabbit, those tricks have been used since at least Clinton and I'd guess even further back. Even St. Rodham had screened questions during her run for prez. You can take it to the bank Barry O'Gump is/has used the screening process. Look no further than the three events last week. All "safe" havens with no real danger of being thrown curves.
As for your bad stomach...Pepto Bismol, Kaopectate and Alka selzer does wonders.
Here we go, bringing Clinton into the mix. You rightwingers simply can't help yourselves. I suppose you're gonna here and say that Vince Foster was murdered by the 'Clintonistas' too, right? The reality is you cannot legitimately compare Clinton's public events with W's.
Nice of you to completely bypass the second part of my post so I take that to mean you agree with it, aka I am correct. Muchas gracias.
It's beneath my dignity to respond to crazy virtual moron rants, so keep preening and puffing. You're the best pig in the poke!
Lofas eshegedba
And again, MMfA can't tell the difference between an opinion stated versus a fact. Somehowor another the left's idea of anyone stating an opinion contrary to the "little red book" ( that I'm sure you all are issued) is cause for derision, panic, reactionary behavior and hystrionics like this. I'm sooooooo really gald the first amendment is soooooo secure fro everyone in the hands of the liberal loony toons.
If anyone should be happy, it should be you. My question for you is: Can't the Fox News Corp ever agree with someone who doesn't follow their goose-stepping? If not, why?
P.S. Is the First Amendment thing only for you or can I have some of it?
Well, so far, the opinions we have heard from the Right about Obama's presser have been devoid of any intelligence or logic. In other words, stupid and worthless.
No panic, reactionary behavior, or histrionics here. Derision, you bet.
Would someone please make sure that Miss De Boat gets her medication and/or electric shock treatments on time from now on?
Thank you.
I question her ph balance...
Sorry, Wz, the supplies have already been exhausted by the latest Rushbot crew to hit the site. Sorry.
I think FoxNoise was jealous immediately after President Obama's News Conference because "not" any WH Staff did their follow-ups with them. Let's see, FoxNoise had former WH Staffer, Karl Rove whereas CNN had R. Emmanuel and MSNBC had David Axelrod. Poor, poor FoxNoise.
Btw, CNN's Ed Henry was very disrespectful to Pres. Obama by using Mr. Obama's daughters in pushing his 'gotcha' questions. I think this may have been why President Obama gave Ed Henry a quick but firm no-nonsense answer. I thought Ed Henry crossed the line - "big time".
CNN was "not" happy with how Mr. Obama showed up Ed Henry. But if CNN review the questions from Ed Henry they too would see that bringing up the President's daughters was a "low blow". So, Mr. Obama had every "right" to shut him down. For we all know how the media (following Rush's and Drudge's orders) had been covering Pres. Obama lately i.e. laughing, over-exposed, and now boring. Shameless, shameless, shameless.
it was not a low-blow, i disagree. He only mentioned them as to how the spending and deficits affect the next generation, and that wasn't why Obama was blunt in his reply. It was the sting of the AIG bonuses, not his daughters.
So basically you're saying you didn't see the Press Conference.
Apparently you didn't.
OOH! You ARE Tommy. He was a master of the "I know you are, but what am I?" response, too. Most of us stopped responding that way in kindergarten.
He also posted as an ignorant third-grade word-parser. So far the correspondence betweeh you and him is perfect.
The funniest part of all is that he's going against his own rule to "call people by their original name" ever time he posts!
Until Tommy and jamesb are here at the same time, I'll assume it's a Clark Kent/Superman kind of thing.
Thank you for the compliment, too. but it doesn't take much smarts to refute your posts, they are so dopey and what they lack in content, they make up for in childish retorts.
jamesB in reply to jamesB:
"Thank you for the compliment, too. but it doesn't take much smarts to refute your posts, they are so dopey and what they lack in content, they make up for in childish retorts."
I doubt you'll get much argument here.
i will give you that one. so I deserved that. however it should have gone to the easy wingnut guy.
Henry "You keep saying that you've inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control". the "shut him down" came at the end of the exchange about as I said, AIG.
HE saw the press conference. The question was asked because BHO failed to give an intelligent or coherent answer as to why his plan would reduce the deficit for the next couple years but then it would escalate again beginning I believe year 5. That balooning deficit in years 6 to 10 in the budget is the genesis of the question and BHO failed to answer (he waffled on about got to get the stimulus going).
BHO's plan will leave a terrible financial mess for the next gneration which can onlybe overcome by massive growth. But hey, MMFA has many times cited the head of the CBO as the possessor of FACT - so that must mean BHO created a falsehood when he used a growth rate greater than the EXPERT to miraculously turn a growing deficit problem into a shrinking deficit success. WHo is right, head of CBO or a politician? If you pick BHO then the ehad of the CBO can't be quoted in the future as being smarter than any other partisan pundit.
Why did he have to ask about his daughters? Could he have just mentioned the next president? This was a stupid gotcha question and Obama answered him. If you and the Loony Righties, don't like these answers well, all I can say is too bad.
Where was the Rights uproar over the garbage left over for this President which could even have been McCain? NOW, only NOW are they worried about the future. The Rights savior, George Bush left his garbage in Washington for it to be cleaned up and the present Repubs want nothing to with it. They actually think they can get people to believe that Obama has created this mess. Sorry, Mr WorldB Right, America has risen fronm the ether and are following a different road. There may be a Rich vs. Poor war going on but at least the "poor" finally have a chance to participate.
Todd did not mention his daughters in any disrespectful or demeaning way? It was to personalize the deficit to politicians who love to do that all the time when they want to make their point. why can't their own tactics be appropriate enough for them?
? was misplaced, should be a .
Oh, of course not. Except that the rightwing talkers have been parroting the 'child abuse' line about the spending, about the debt 'destroying' the next generation, yada yada yada. Wonder who Todd listens to during his lunch break? Hmmm... perhaps the guy Brian williams freely admitted to listening to recently?
Next time you may wanna think a bit deeper before stepping into the arena.
your post is completely incomprehensible. if you think future debt on generations is a rightwing talker parrot, you are clueless. as for your child abuse analogy, or whatever the reference is for, it makes no sense.
Hey, it's not MY analogy. I'm not one of the Rush clones spewing the 'child abuse' line. Turn on your AM radio and listen to them before slamming my post. It'll save your keyboard some stress.
if you want to quote Limbaugh and then get all bent because it makes no sense, don't blame me.
Tommy, I think that Henry asked a legitimate, albeit patent, question about the bonuses. Mentioning Obama's daughters in the context of future generations may be right on the line, but reporters should confront politicians in a way that drives it home. I just think reporters jump on one theme and drive it to death whether it's important or not. This is why I don't like the question all that much.
However, Obama also was rightfully bristly in his response. I thought it was perfect.
WordlyMrR, I am so "happy" to know you (and "all" those Republicans) can "truly" predict what will happen in the next 5, 6, and 10 years. Thanks for letting us "all" in on your predictions. Great job. Oh, and because of this reason "only" I will say in the years of 2014, 2015, and 2019 I will give you (and "all" those Republicans) your props. Boy, I can't wait.
Btw, did you release your predictions and CBO's numbers to former President Bush when he was in Office? Can you share what happen? Just curious.
I am predicting that by 2014 there will be no more Republicans or hopefully, no more Conservatives...the Repubs can stay.
Here, here.
...and while they are all "predicting" they better "predict" that the ATM and my debit card works on payday. I'd like to know that while they are all "predicting".
So that would be an improvement over GWB's plan, which would have left a terrible financial mess for the next several generations.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Who's right are those who has a willingness to calculate basic mathematics. The CBO is a projectile. It can no more predict what will happen in the next 8 years than you will be able to tell us who the starting quarterback for the Bears will be.
Second point about why President Obama isn't any old politician. He's smart. I mean really, really smart. So I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.
Is the right that stupid to think that Pres. Obama hasn't thought about these things? To answer my own question..YES THEY ARE.
The Loony Right is so confused about reality right now because they lived in the dark with Cheney-Bush running things. They never questioned their own. But now, they want to question Prez Obama but the guy is showing that he is birghter than them and he will push back...."I inherited this". I hope he keeps repeating that and someday, the blockheads may realize that January 20,2001 thru January 19, 2009 comes before January 20,2009. I'm not sure they are capable but they seem to be able to remember the 90s' with Bill Clinton.
Speaking of the Clintons'..they must be thrilled that these Loonies on the Right have forgotten about them. Now Hillary can do her work, get things accomplished without the nuts bothering her. And Bill should send Obama a box of candy, at least.Prez. Obama will probably unleash Hillary soon and catch the Loonies further off-guard.
good point. the CBO is only used when it's convenient for mmfa to make their case.
reply should have been to Wordly
Honestly, JamesB, the guy thinks "the faces behind MMFA need to experience the pain associated with teh rape of a close friend or family member."
He simply has no good points.
he may have his opinion, but he isn't an out and out liar like you are.
Yes it is so cool to 'shut down' a question about the level of government spending. Seems to be a question/issue being raised around the globe. Here is wht the The Times in London had to say -
The Times rported this morning, Mr Obama says that the G20 nations have a "responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and co-ordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again".
But at last week’s EU summit in Brussels, the tensions were obvious as Germany, France and other major EU countries resisted American calls for a massive and coordinated fiscal stimulus and made it clear that Mr Brown, as summit host, would not be allowed to sign Europe up to one.
The EU has already collectively poured nearly $370 billion into the European economy so far and Germany, France and the European Commission are leading calls for the focus to move to tighter financial regulations - which the UK fears could damage the City.
Today Mr Topolanek said: “We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way.
“Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market."
The attack by Mr Topolanek came a day after Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, was warning MPs that the UK couldnot afford a further "signficant fiscal expansion".
You seened to have forgotten that Mr. Topolanek was ousted by his own parliment. Also, A research fellow at the Bruegel think tank said that Tpoplaneks' views are not widely shared by EU leaders. EU Commission President Jose Manuel says that iit is not helpful to suggest the Us and the EU are coming in with different approachs. He also says that on the contrary, what we are seeing is increased convergence.
Mervyn King did say that but that is his opinion, not totaly shared by Brown. Also, Germany, France and the EU are going into the meeting open-minded. The attack by Mr. Tpoplanek is moot at this point in time.
How little you know about Europe. I will come back at you after the G20 and we can discuss general European feeling.
Topolanek was not ousted, there was a vote of no confidence - s process that might lead to a change but doesn't guarantee it. Brown is out on a limb as he needs the US to succeed so he is going to side with the US but many in the UK do not agree with him and his ratings are at all time low.
Germany and France may be open minded - who wouldn't say that - but the policies they have enacted over the last 4 months points to a clear disagreement with the US plan of action.
Topolanek was not ousted, there was a vote of no confidence - s process that might lead to a change but doesn't guarantee it. MrR
Doesn't a vote of "no confidence" lead to the dissolution of parliment leading to an election? If so, don't you think it's highly unlikely that the number of seats held by all parties will remain exactly the same? You are parsing like mad with that. I think a vote of "no confidence" and oust are pretty interchangeable in such a situation even though after an election they could end up with the same leader.
Wait - says right here (emphasis added)...
Four coalition and independent lawmakers joined the opposition Social Democrats and Communists yesterday in Prague to topple the government, which holds the European Union’s rotating presidency and will host President Barack Obama on April 5 during Obama’s first European visit.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahsm_EqTrZqs
JamesB, everyone knows that President Obama's daughters are 'off limits' especially the so-called journalists from CNN. Ed Henry was "disrespectful" in digging so "low" with his bias questions to President Obama. And then afterwards, Ed became the poor victim (Anderson Cooper even told Ed to go lick his wounds last night) as he tried to explain out his reasons for being showed up by Pres. Obama.
No journalists "ever" asked former Pres. Bush how his spending and deficits would affect his daughters, or future grandchildren when he was in Office for eight years. As for AIG, Pres. Obama told you guys to "blame" him last week so he could move on with America's business. Are you guys still fishing around in that barrel? "Gotcha"!!!!
Henry could of showed some class and framed the question with "OUR children" or something similar
I thought oftentimes the librul media was just trying to put the President on the spot, notably that clown Chuck Todd, who seemed to be baiting Obama into a Jimmy Carter moment with his stooopid question about sacrifice.
*could have
yes, I said stooopid
ditto!
You can write!
It seems to me that in only two press conferences, so far, that Obama has used a higher quantity of full, complete and rational sentences than the previous office-holder uttered in over eight years. No doubt Republicans will find this fact something to criticize Obama about as well.
JMH, So true, and this is why the Republicans are spewing out every "nasty" and "crazy" Republican Talking Point i.e. laughter, over-exposed, boring that they can. These Republicans are in overdrive 24/7. But hey, great "distractions" for MSM to report on as news, huh?
I realize that as a nation we've allowed ourselves to become awfully dumbed down, and we succomb to the 30 second soundbite, however, boring is not what it was. So here goes:
Dear Mr. President,
I appreciate your calm tone, your analysis of where things are, and how we as a nation need to work this out. Having said all of that, might I suggest that when talking to reporters - you need to use little words and phrases, because speaking to them as though you are speaking to rational thinking adults, actually causes them heartburn. Think of it like this - a 3 year old is having a tantrum and the "parent" is talking ever sooooo rational - as though the 3 year old is going to suddenly stop screaming, kicking the floor, and thrashing about! Sometimes you just have to snatch the child off the floor, give them the crazy look, put a finger over your mouth going shhhhhh! At some level they actually do get that.
Sincerely,
Oh, we're sorry..........is it too much for your -100 IQ, pea-sized brains to comprehend when an intelligent, articulate, logical president tells us what he's doing for the country? I guess you'd all like to have the Bushmeister back telling us how to put food on our family or waxing sentimental about how uniquely American it is to work 3 jobs to support your family. Now, THOSE were the fun glory days!!
"I hope he doesn't give any of those five minute answers. Those bore me."
God forbid we have a president who gives a complete answer with facts and details! That would be so awful!
It's was boring because you, media-yikes, are illiterate.
THS was beautiful! FINALLY, a reporter hit Obama with a question between the eyes. "You are doubling the deficit, how do you feel about that?" Ka-pow-yowwww!
The last Bush deficit, his biggest ever, was 400 Billion. The first budget Obama put in is 1.85 trillion. He is lieing. He quadrupled Bush's deficit and then cut THAT in half. The closest Obama will ever come to Bush is 600 billion in 2012. Bush could NEVER get away with this!!! Obama can. This guy is REALLY getting away with saying "right now" that he is cutting the deficit by half!!! Democrats really do not care about the debt. 50% do not pay taxes and now get money back from the government. No one has EVER done this before.
I was disgusted with Bush's spending. This guy is from outer space or something. How can any of these dems just shake there head "yes" to this. I was looking at the facts shaking my head "no", that is a bold face lie.
Want to see the chart that doesn't lie, unlike Obama:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/25/video-obama-on-blaming-bush-for-deficits/
Let's look at reality. These budgets, the stimulus package and even the bailout appear to have averted a sure depression.
While if Republicans were in charge, there would be more tax cuts for the wealthy, more deregulation, even less accountability than in the Bush years and sure cuts to the social safety net and a sure depression.
I get it now.
Let's look at reality. These budgets, the stimulus package and even the bailout appear to have averted a sure depression.
OK. A "Sure" depression? Are you SURE about that? This recession is not even anywhere near the Carter recession of the late 70's early '80's. Unemployment is nowhere near 30 yrs ago and the misery index doesn't even approach that time.
Please explain how we're on the cusp of a "sure" depression? Links would be nice.
So where were the Cartervilles?
These clowns have a side show going of trying to discredit Jimmy Carter. His presidency had mixed reviews, but if we'd followed his energy policies, we'd be in soooo much better shape. And his humanitarian work through Habitat, his foundation to support global health and better economies, and his work for global peace are a testimony to his good character.
Their attempts to attack him just show how petty and heartless they are.
Did you catch Contessa on MSNBC this afternoon? She is superpissed, I tell ya! The Repubs were supposed to have an alternative budget drawn up and guess what... nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oh, but they did manage to get in a few 'zingers' at Obama, of course.
So I say let them continue their attacks on all previous D Presidents. That is all they have left. Fear and smear. No real plans at all.
That is coming up. Just as the dems could have passed this budget last year but WAITED for Obama.
The dems are not getting ANYTHING done.
No, fool, that was supposed to be done TODAY, not 'coming up'. Pay attention, please. And quit telling lies about the Dems, you're wasting our time with that drivel, thanks.
Contessa's video is up on dKos for those who are interested. :)
So you DISAGREE that there was a Carter recession? Of what energy policies do you speak? If they were so good why was Carter tossed after one term?
I agree with all your assessment of his humanitarian work and his honorable work in the Middle East peace process.
I loved his book AN HOUR BEFORE DAYLIGHT. His explanation of how the family farm system worked in the 20' and 30's was very enlightening and was a window into our own family's farm, which was on the same model as the Carter's.
Don't confuse criticism with attack. it is a mistake that is made by your side on this forum continually.
You realy need to open your mind and stop being blinded by your ideology. The obvious just seems to slip right by you. Without looking at your sources I could tell the $400billion figure for Bush was bogus. The first clue is that the cost of the wars was never figured into any Bush budget. A war that is costing us in excess of $10billion/month and into the 6th yr. that has yet to be paid for. With just that fact your figure of 400bil just doesn't make sense. You add that to the fact that GB took a $268 billion dollar surplus and turned into $400 billion dollar deficit in just 9 months is more like it. So lets do the rough math: 268 oh say250 minus 400 + 720...well you get the point,your numbers don't add up.? What I don't understand is the same people who spent us into this mess under Bush and had no problem with it now know how to right the ship! Guess how? BY DOING MORE OF WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS! That's crazy! Under G. Bush the public coffeurs were raided, as regulatory post after civil service post were filled with loyalist and ex-lobbyist who manipulated laws and influence to enrich themselves and cronies at tax-payer expense, not even the Department of Justice was spared in this complete rape of our economic, military and moral being. The destruction George Bush has wrought is in far excess of the puny figure you gave, and yet with your unreality rants you act like Obama created this mess. I remember in the 80's the Republicans pushed the same "deficits hurt our kids line" only to run up the biggest deficits up until that time and preside over a $500billion dollar savings and loan fiasco. It took Clinton to clean up that mess,dragging the Republicans by their hair, only to have another Republican bring us to this point and you guys come with the same BS again. We can't spend for healthcare, we can't spend for unemployment insurance, no money for education in essence no money for anything that would lighten the burden of the working man. Spend Obama spend!
I find Bill the Clown insufficienly entertaining considering he's a CLOWN!
Is anybody on FOX News, educated? Better yet, can they SPELL it?
Pity the poor mediaheads, forced to work all day every day, after an 8 year vacation! Poor babies.
OBAMA was boring? Talk about the kettle and the pot. When I have trouble sleeping, I turn on CNN or any of the other news channels. If the mindless anchors are not enough with their total lack of understanding or willingness to do the homework, it is the "experts" they drag out from under the rocks of the GOP's garden. My idea of Hell is being stuck on an elevator with Wolf Blitzer.
Love ya, maddog!
substitute Tucker,Rush or Hannity and I'd say we've been having similiar dreams. Hahaha!