home

White House Gets a New Website

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:44:39 AM EST
Tags: Obama, White House (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Check out the new White House website. It even has a blog.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Obama's Inaugural Speech: Live Thread | Wall St.: Bank Stocks, Bonds Tumble >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    White House Gets a New Website | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Starting to go through the policy points (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    it seems he's been busy.

    From civil rights:

    End Deceptive Voting Practices: President Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
    End Racial Profiling: President Obama and Vice President Biden will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.
    Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support: President Obama and Vice President Biden will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama and Biden will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.
    Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
    Expand Use of Drug Courts: President Obama and Vice President Biden will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

    from
    Support for the LGBT community:
    Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
    Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
    Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
    Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

    Thanks for posting that (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    That is a very encouraging list with very encouragingly assertive and unqualified language.

    Parent
    I notice that they aren't pretending (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    (as both he and Clinton did earlier) that they will do something about DOMA.

    Parent
    hm? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Nasarius on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    Read closer:
    Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.

    It's not a promise, but it's a clearly stated goal to repeal DOMA. Good for Obama, and good for people (like Glenn Greenwald) whose lives have been affected by this piece of legislated bigotry.

    Parent

    Sorry, you're right, I should have read (none / 0) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    closer. DOMA won't be repealed though. It's nice that Obama is against it.

    Parent
    Eliminate Sentencing Disparities... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:56:12 AM EST
    a no-brainer, to be sure...but oh how I wish they'd start talking about ending sentencing, prosecution, and arrests...period.

    Parent
    I think that's taking it a little too far. (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:57:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Too far... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    if your stuck in the prohibitionist mindset, yeah.

    But if you open your mind to a true life of liberty, it makes perfect sense.

    Parent

    In other words, (none / 0) (#8)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    separate but equal for gay people.  And he has been pretty open in stating that these issues aren't worth spending his political capital on.  

    Oh well, 4-8 more years of bigotry.  Someday our time will come.

    Parent

    What a crock (none / 0) (#66)
    by slr51 on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    Support for Full Civil Unions at the Federal level and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. This sets up the dominoes of state by state full marriage rights.

    Full marriage rights throughout 100% of the country is the goal. This plan is probably the fastest way there.

    ... but yeah, like you say - he's just like Bush on gay rights. /snark

    Parent

    DOMA isn't going to be repealed. (none / 0) (#73)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    There aren't enough votes in the Senate. 15 of the Dems who supported DOMA are still in office. Even if at least a third have changed their minds, every single new Dem Senator in the last decade will have to vote to repeal. And that includes Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Casey, McCaskill, Tester, etc.

    Parent
    I would not be surprised (none / 0) (#76)
    by slr51 on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    to see at least a few moderate Republicans voting to repeal.

    Collins & Snowe for example. The Maine state legislature is currently considering two bills; one for full marriage rights and one for civil unions that have all of the legal rights of marriage. The ladies from Maine will tend to go where there state leads them.

    Parent

    I could see Snowe, Collins and perhaps (none / 0) (#77)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:20:29 PM EST
    Specter or Voinovich flipping. But I don't see that doing enough to counter our more conservative members.

    Parent
    Even if DOMA is repealed (none / 0) (#78)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    wouldn't it have to be replaced by something stating that the federal government will not recognize gay marriages?  After all, Obama has pledged to have federal civil unions.  He believes that marriage is between man and a woman because god is in the mix.  So, I assume he would therefore veto any bill that would have the federal government recognizing a gay marriage.  That is, after all, what President Obama states on his website.

    Parent
    I don't think Obama would veto such a bill. (none / 0) (#80)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    But I'm sure he'll never see one.

    Parent
    Well, same thing really. (none / 0) (#82)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:24:36 PM EST


    Parent
    No there's a difference. What I mean is (none / 0) (#83)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    that this congress and Senate would never pass a bill making equal marriage legal, so Obama would never have a chance to sign it or not.

    Parent
    Well, but I think one of the reasons (none / 0) (#87)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    it probably wouldn't pass is because Obama may put pressure on the congress not to pass it because it would put him in an awkward political position.  That's what I meant.  

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    From website

    enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions

    emphasis mine.

    What other legally-recognized unions (other than civil) could he mean besides marriage?

    Where does he state on his website that he would veto a bill that recognizes gay marriage???

    Parent

    Domestic Partnerships (none / 0) (#88)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:33:34 PM EST
    Several states have domestic partnership legislation that falls short of civil unions and marriage.

    Obama opposes gay marriage, and as for federally recognized relationships his website advocates for civil unions.

    Parent

    ok... (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    But he doesn't say "some other" he says "other".  And if DOMA is repealed like he says he wants, gay marriage would definitely fall into the "legally recognized unions" category.

    I know he prefers civil unions, but he has never advocated banning marriage.  And a veto would effectively do that.

    Parent

    He doesn't just prefer (none / 0) (#91)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    civil unions.  He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because god is in the mix.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    he will leave the "wording" to the states.

    Parent
    "results for guantanamo" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Andreas on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    "Search was unable to find any results for guantanamo, you may have typed your word incorrectly, have entered an empty phrase or are being too specific."

    Gone Already (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41:06 PM EST
    That was fast...

    Parent
    another missing (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    "Search was unable to find any results for rendition, you may have typed your word incorrectly, have entered an empty phrase or are being too specific.

    Try using a broader search phrase."

    Parent

    actually I can't find (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    "waterboarding" or "torture" either (outside of Mary Lincoln's bio).  Nor "interrogations."  I don't know if there is a section missing, or what.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:03:04 PM EST
    "rendition" comes up with 11,200,000 hits for me.

    Parent
    Today's Villain (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) for re-plowing ground in an attempt to hold up Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State.

    A preview of what's to come?

    Cornyn appears to be the lone ranger on this.  If Senate Democrats can't or WON'T easily plow him under on this we're in for a tough road.

    As far as I know (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    he only killed today's voice vote. A regular vote will take place tomorrow.

    Parent
    After all this time... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    ...we're back to visiting Obama's website.  Hehe, I love it!

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    That brings back memories.

    Parent
    Thoughts about today: Never thought I'd see the (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    day that we inaugurated a minority race into the highest office in the land.  Hallelujah! Roberts is a scum who I think intentionally tried to make Obama flub the oath.  I didn't like Michelle's dress, thought a darker, more vivid color would have been better for her complexion.  Malia is a beautiful girl and Sasha is cute as a button!  Liked Obama's speech, especially the parts about peace and trying to get along with everyone else, that as the world grows smaller we must or else.  Noticed that Laura and the girls did not clap after the swearing in or speech although Dubya did.  What's with Cheney in the chair?  I have nothing nice to say about Dubya or Cheney.  And finally, I have one of those little countdown things called "Bush's Last Day"  and I was thrilled when it went to 00:00:00!

    My thoughts are with Senator Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    and his family.  I wish him a speedy recovery.  I am so glad he was able to participate in the swearing in ceremony earlier and I pray that he will have a speedy recovery and will be back in the Senate as a leader for progressive initiatives soon.

    2nd best interview I've heard all day (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    has been with Luci Johnson on ABC. She has talked a lot about what this day would have meant to her father. She is a wonderful story teller and speaks very eloquently about her experiences int he WH and also her experience today on the mall.  I mention it because the other stations have barely mentioned Lyndon Johnson.

    My first favorite was with John Lewis on CNN. He is always so moving.

    Bush is finally going back to Texas (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:50:06 AM EST


    This conservative hopes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    Obama has good council and makes the correct decisions for the country.

    More from the policy points (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    the wonks who like to dig through campaign finance and lobbying reports:

    Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: President Obama and Vice President Biden will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
    Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama and Biden will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
    End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: President Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won't be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.

    And more.

    That last one will never happen. (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:00:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Um, the last point (none / 0) (#12)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    actually concerns me a little.  Obama is now the head of the executive branch.  Should he really be meddling into the activities of the legislative branch that way?

    Don't get me wrong; I'm all for openness in the creation of legislation.  But shouldn't the president be focussing more on keeping his own (i.e. the executive branch's) house in order, and not claiming authority over the legislative branch which the constitution doesn't anticipate?

    Parent

    It IS Called (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    Checks and balances. I know that it has been a long time, but that is how it is supposed to work. Exec checks the legislative branch, because they are not going to offer to be transparent on their own.


    Parent
    Um, the checks and balances (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    are those that are written into the constitution.  It should not be for the branches to make up new ones.

    Parent
    What Is New About Transparency (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    Sunshine is a very old disinfectant. This is a very healthy check by the exec on congress, imo.

    Are you against transparency? I really cannot fathom your reasons for having a problem with this, unless it is ODS. That would make sense.

    Parent

    Um, I said I am all for transparency, (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    but I am not for the executive branch encroaching on the legislative branch in any unconstitutional fashion.  Just as I am not for the legislative branch encroaching on the executive branch in an unconstitutional fashion, etc.

    The main check of the executive branch over the legislative branch is the veto power.  Playing a role in rewriting internal congressional rules is not a constitutional check that I can immediately locate in the document, thhough.  Perhaps instead of trying to insult me or shut me down by name-calling, you could point to the part of the constitution that covers this.

    Parent

    Encroaching? WTF (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    You do not sound as if you know what you are talking about.

    Unconstitutional? That is a load of rubbish. Name calling? Hardly.

    Your ill informed comment seems so out there that I was reaching for straws wondering where you are coming from.

    Parent

    Well, if you think that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    the executive "working to reform congressional rules" is something other than encroaching, perhaps you can explain what it is.

    Like it or not, the branches of government are, to a large degree, independent and self-regulating.  If you're not happy with the internal rules of congress, perhaps you should focus your energies on getting congress to improve upon their rules.  My initial opinion, unless someone (not you apparently because instead of engaging my request chose simply to insult me again) can point me to the responsiblity of the executive to work to rewrite congressional rules in the constitution, is that the executive should focus on its own ethics.

    Parent

    By your logic (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    the Constitution empowers Congress to pass laws, and does not empower the President to "work to encourage Congress to pass laws," so the President isn't allowed to try and get any laws passed.  He has to just sit quietly at his desk and hope they send him something good to sign.

    There is no suggestion that Obama intends to use any device other than ordinary political persuasion to encourage Congress to become more transparent.  He is not claiming any power to rewrite their rules unilaterally.  There is nothing wrong with one branch of government urging another branch to do something; in fact it happens every day.

    Parent

    Well, that's your interpretation (none / 0) (#72)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    of "work with" I guess.  Perhaps it's really just an issue of semantics, but I wouldn't have used those words.  It sounds to much to me like playing an active role in crafting internal congressional rules (which, I would point out, is not the same as crafting legislation, which both the executive and the legislature have a constitional role in enacting).  I know everyone is frustrated about lack of transparency in congress, but I personally don't think that having the executive playing an important role in crafting internal congressional rules would be a positive development.  Too much chance for mischief and a bad precedent.

    In any event, I didn't intend this to become the biggest deal in the world, but I still do have the opinion that the wording of the whole thing does trouble me.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I understand (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    what you're concerned an "active role" might entail.  What can Obama do, at the end of the day, other than simply ask Congress to do something?

    Parent
    Well, I mean, being a public (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    advocate for general openness in all areas of government is one thing, and certainly I don't have a problem with that.  Would that it were the case that all politicans had such a position!  But I'm sure there are lots of ways, both publicly and behind closed doors, that Presidents can put pressure on Congress to take certain actions.  And, I'd rather an executive not use those methods with Congress as it concerns Congress' internal rules.  

    Parent
    I believe the term you are looking for is (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    "arm twisting" and yes, I have no doubt with Rahm and the other Chicago boys that there will be arm-twisting.

    Of course, that can go both ways as Nancy and Harry helped get Obama where he is.  They know where the bodies are buried. Obama owes them.

    Parent

    Sorry, I meant "work to". (none / 0) (#75)
    by dk on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    That's what the website says, apparently.  

    Parent
    He'll (none / 0) (#11)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    have to persuade the broad American public that the "change" required to salvage this society runs much deeper, colder, and thicker than they'd imagine in their initial transports over hallelujah-Bush-is-Gone.

    As long as he is convinced himself I'm (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    not worried about that part.

    Parent
    Leave it to (none / 0) (#16)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    the Wall Street crowd to screw up and otherwise inspiring day.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:15:28 PM EST


    Parent
    They ain't messin' with my day... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    but then again I'd bet my life on a spin of roulette before I gave the Wall St. crew a dime.

    Parent
    No fair Kdog...... (none / 0) (#86)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    If everyone starts to think like you how am I supposed to make my millions from your blood, sweat and tears...... :-)

    Parent
    To quote the Judge... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:38:25 PM EST
    "The world needs ditch-diggers too, vml"..:)

    The truth is I'm probably the fool...the poor fool.  I only look smart once every ten years or so when the market collapses.

    But it feels right, or at least right for me.  

    Parent

    Believe me, they'd rather have it the other (none / 0) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    way around.

    Parent
    Time to get to Work! (none / 0) (#19)
    by WS on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    Time to pass our Liberal Agenda!!!  

    They are having an elegant lunch. (none / 0) (#21)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    It's on TeeVee

    Parent
    New Site on Health care (none / 0) (#22)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:28:50 PM EST
    "Affordable". Not "universal."
    What good would (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    "Universal" Be if it wasn't affordable?

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:29:26 PM EST
    cannot listen to more lunch commentary.  TV is off now.  Inauguration was wonderful though.

    Commentary (none / 0) (#27)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    You mean meaningless babble?

    I try to avoid it at all cost.

    Parent

    I'm laughing at the CNN ads (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    saying how they demand answers from politicians. Well, that will be a change.

    I've got the sound on because I keep changing rooms and don't want to miss anything, but the babble is ridiculous.

    Parent

    how about: (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.

    you might find yourself on the wrong ends of criminal & civil suits, if your police dept. continues to practice "profiling"? make someone a fiscal impediment to a locality, and i guarantee you, they will either be gone, or quickly change their ways. follow the money!

    In other words, separate but equal for gay people.

    i'm not quite sure where you get that from. if you're referring to the 1,100+ fed. laws & regs. affecting married couples, that's pretty much as good as it's going to get. simply put, the federal gov't doesn't define marriage, the state gov'ts do. frankly, they shouldn't be doing it either, since marriage is a religious title and institution.

    the only thing that concerns the state are the legal entanglements created by two people signing that contract, what they call it is irrelevant.

    if gays (or anyone else, for that matter) wish to refer to it as "marriage", by all means, feel free. you'll get no argument from me. or most other people either, i suspect.

    I can't believe DR. Jill Biden (none / 0) (#32)
    by sallywally on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    was so stupid as to say Joe got to choose between VP and SoS. And people thought JOE was a gaffe-bag.

    What an obnoxious thing to do. I have lost all respect for her. She better learn how to live at the top very fast, IMO.

    Yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by slr51 on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:08:54 PM EST
    honesty is soooo repugnant.

    Parent
    are you saying you think he DID (none / 0) (#99)
    by allimom99 on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    have that choice? Regardless of Joe's vast knowledge of foreign policy, he's never been known as a diplomat. I don't see Obama wanting him on boardso much as to let him control that decision - do you?

    Parent
    Wheels up on Bush (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    YAY!!

    Sitting in my apartment in Alexandria (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    Just sitting at my desk, listening to music and I see a plane coming from Andrews AFB way.  I pull out my binoculars and see it is Air Force One (well, not technically anymore, since he is no longer POTUS).  It flies right over my building, so I made sure to wave heartily to George and Laura.

    Best thing by far about today!

    Parent

    How many fingers did you use in your wave? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Ahhh.... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    ....a lady never tells...... :)

    Parent
    Bet I could guess. :) (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:53:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Hm (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    I am pretty sure that is not a new development.

    Yep, a search of the (none / 0) (#49)
    by eric on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    google cache reveals that Bush also had a Spanish language version.

    Parent
    Tweety gets busted, good, (none / 0) (#47)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    by Al Roker, reminding him about how his leg got to tingle.

    Tweety obviously p*ssed and unable to do much about it.

    LMFAO

    Just telling a friend (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    I was picturing Tweety as Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally" - pounding on the newsdesk and screaming "Yes We Can!"

    Parent
    You're making my eyes melt (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    and I'm not even looking at anything other than this monitor and a white screen with letters appearing on it.

    Such is the power of the image you present.  

    You should stop that.

    Parent

    I know, it's ugly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    Sorry for the visual - I won't tell you what I thought Olbermann was doing.

    Parent
    I like Morning Joe (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    and was suffering through most of the Obama worship until Brokaw came on and started to literaly cry he was so emmotional.    

    Really?  Cry?  Just throw any hint of objective journalism out the window why don't you.  


    Parent

    He was just sitting back and watching (none / 0) (#69)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    Tweety twist, ever so slowly, in the wind, smiling lightly and wondering how this could be used to further ease Tweety into the 10PM hour.

    Parent
    A Senator just collapsed at the luncheon (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    CNN has heard it was Kennedy, but no confoirmation

    ABC (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:46:10 PM EST
    confirms Kennedy

    Parent
    Damn (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:47:44 PM EST


    Parent
    CNN and MSN (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    both say Kennedy

    He was taken out on a stretcher.

    Hold on Ted, we still need you!

    Parent

    First said Byrd. I hope either one is ok. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:46:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama is mentioning Teddy in his (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    post-toast remarks. How sad he is missing the rest of this day. I hope the day was just too much for him to handle and he is going to be OK.

    Parent
    Byrd (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    Was taken out of the room b/c he was very upset about Kennedy.  He is fine though.

    Parent
    CBS says both Kennedy and Byrd (none / 0) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    experienced "medical difficulties" and had to leave the luncheon.

    Preliminary polling from overseas (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:49:47 PM EST
    from the German Suddeutsche Zeitung (234 answers) as to whether Obama can effect the change he says:

    5 % Obama will set high goals and reach them successfully.
    21 % Obama will do a good job and have good results.
    52 % Obama will get the work begun, but his successor will have to complete it.
    20 % No chance:  Obama will fail.

    It's a small sample size, but an interesting distribution.

    Reality stopped having a liberal bias (none / 0) (#67)
    by BrianJ on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    At noon today.  Reality is always a member of the opposition, like the famed Russian Generals January and February.

    For the first time, Obama will have to do something other than make speeched.  I am, as they say, cautiously pessimistic.

    Parent

    As a conservative (none / 0) (#71)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    I've really come around on Obama but worry that he will fight with his own party because he will actually try to compromise and Reid/Pelosi will try to drag the democratic party down with them.  

    For some on this site I'm sure they would prefer Reid/Pelosi do just that.

    Parent

    Obamas leave car early (none / 0) (#96)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    I like that.  I remember in 2000 when I saw Bush sit in the car during the parade.  It was a rainy day, we were all miserable, and there they were, driving in a warm car down Pennsylvania Avenue.  That left a really bad impression on me - and I hadn't liked him to begin with!

    My husband and I went to Clinton's second (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:21:54 PM EST
    inauguration and he and Hillary and Chelsea walked almost the entire route even though it was very cold outside.  We had bleacher tickets and Ted Kennedy and his large family and entourage sat directly behind us.  A very memorable experience for us.  Wish we could have been there today but just could not afford it this time.  I'm glad it was such a grand event and that the weather was sunny even though cold.  This is truly historic and I have such a great feeling right now.  

    Parent
    Emotion (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    The emotion that I experienced during the pageantry of today's inauguration was hard to define. I found the departure of Bush to be such a relief that everything else paled in comparison.
    I couldn't wait for the helicopter to take off. I was in suspended animation after the Bushes had boarded and the thing just sat there for what seemed an eternity while the Obamas and the Bidens stood there waving.

    I was waving too. G O O D B Y E.

    As for the rest ... the speech and all - the plus I felt about it was that there were an absolute minimum of applause lines. I can't stand them. I was pleased that the speech moved right along. But I must say I don't have any idea what Obama talks about. Every sentence seems to say something - but doesn't quite say something at the same time. I'm sure I'm in the minority with this perception. But - this is the place for subjective musings.

    The one line that curled my hair a bit was the "We will defeat you" line. Obligatory tough. Totally unnecessary.

    But all in all, a calm feeling - and welcome.

    Bush's departure reminded me of the fall of the Berlin Wall. A terrible era ended. The powers that be were quick to tell everyone not to be euphoric - and they were quick to find new hostilities to keep us on pins and needles to the present day.

    But perhaps things will be different this time around.

    I have my fingers crossed.

    White House Gets a New Website | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment