home

President Obama on "60 Minutes"

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:50:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama disses Dick Cheney, praises Tim Geithner and discusses America's anger at Wall St. tonight on "60 Minutes." On Cheney:

Obama fires back at former Vice President Dick Cheney's charge that his plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and end the torture of terrorism suspects has made the U.S. less safe:

"How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment."

Did the President accomplish his objectives in going on the show? Was he better here than on Leno? He's also pre-empting regular tv programming Tuesday night with another public address to the country. At least he's not avoiding us.

< When Debtholders Ask For Shared Sacrifice | Mellencamp on the State of the Music Business >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    President Obama on "60 Minutes" | 111 comments (111 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I haven't a clue what his objectives (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:53:58 PM EST
    are.  I haven't read anything that defines his objectives in engaging in this latest media blitz.

    I think his objectives (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:58:20 PM EST
    are to use campaign season style communications to prop up support for the stimulus bill and his administration generally.

    Parent
    Well, they are going to introduce the (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:04:11 PM EST
    budget this week and Geithner's plan, but I was just saying that I don't know what his specific objectives are in this blitz outside of the obvious which would be to keep "The People" on his side as he tries to push his agenda forward.  What I do not know is what the Administration thinks their particular challenges are right now.

    Parent
    Thanks for correction (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:26:45 PM EST
    I meant budget rather than stimulus bill.

    Parent
    Crappy answer on the AG bonus tax (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:59:36 PM EST


    AIG I mean (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:59:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#47)
    by iluvela on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:28:51 PM EST
    You can bet the AG will not get a bonus tax no matter how much $ he is making on the side.

    Parent
    I think he did not need to say much of anything (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:12:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Geithner (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    I am not someone who wants him replaced. I want someone to be on the room with him when these decisions are made because he simply has a blind spot on Wall Street, I do not trust him on the financial situation.

    Obama needs more advisors on the issue.

    So maybe he could (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    appoint a few?

    Aren't there like 17 open slots in the Treasury?

    Parent

    Someone in the room... (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    Most of the time, that "someone" is probably Larry Summers. While I think that Summers has a stronger presence and broader grasp of the total package (based upon his experience and appearances), it may well be that the same "blind spot" exists for the mentor as for the protege. The position of Secretary at this time (or down the road)--in my opinion--cries out for someone with a sterling ethical, academic, and broad practice background. In terms of trustworthy appearance and credentials a bit different than the total Wall Street cachet, Christina Romer is somewhat appealing...but, it may be that she is primarily an appealing communicator. I do no that the communication issue for the Secretary in the months ahead cannot be ignored if one goal is to obtain trust and support on these complicated economic issues from the public at large. An acquaintance of mine, who is a retired chair of a reputable university economics department, cautioned, in a recent conversation, that there a many bad economists "out there." Then, he added that there are also a number of highly regarded economists outside The Street milieu. (Since we can all be excused a "little gallows humor" these days, maybe the upsurge in markets today will loosen up the dyspeptic persona of Secretary Geithner.)

    Parent
    On Obama's plan for the financial crisis (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    I like that Obama said that Buffet has his own agenda, just like any normal person would.

    I do not like that Obama does not see that Geithner is not being an honest broker on this.

    Who is advising him that is not Wall Street centric?

    It's furstrating to hear him in a way (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    He seems to get it but then the actions do not match the words.

    Parent
    I think he gets it in a way. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    I think the disconnect is that he is entrusting his "expert" - Geithner - with working out the detail which is why the actions and words don't match.  He is not an economist and like all great lawyers I know he is probably heavily invested in the notion of sticking with what you know and not endeavouring in the detail of things you do not know - which basically means that he is entrusting Geithner to deliver his vision, but likely staying out of the way on "the minutia" thinking that Geithner will come through.

    LBJ believed McNamara and his crew to be experts on foreign policy and thought that they had special insight into Vietnam.  He defered to their counsel thinking that his gut was not as valid a reference point as their degrees from the likes of Yale.  It is not impossible to think that there is some degree of expert worship in action now with Obama and Geithner.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:31:23 PM EST
    I think it's a judgement issue. You have advisors and you need to know when to listen to them and when not to. Remember Bush relied heavily on his advisors too. I don't think delegating everything to others is a very good thing for Presidents to do.

    Parent
    The thing is that he is not an (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    economics guy.  I really don't think he ever showed great skill in the area of economics and most everything I heard from him before the economy really became the issue was more along the lines of "Government should stay out of Wall Street's way".  I don't think he imagined himself to be the economy President.  I think he saw himself as the world diplomatic President.  Then the world changed around him and here he is.

    Huge irony too that after 30+ years of ideology that insisted that government should stay out of business' way, everyone is waiting with baited breath for the POTUS to save business from itself.  In a lot of ways, I do not think he is prepared to respond other than having an understanding that if he does not respond his political career will be over.

    I've made this point a few times over the past few days, but there is a big difference between using the government as your instrument for change and using Wall Street - huge difference.  Obama gets government - that's been his study for however many years - but he doesn't possess an expertise in using the financial industry in the same way and that is where Geithner comes in - he supposedly does know how that world works and is charged with taking Obama's vision and attempting to funnel it through the unpredictable and thoroughlly uncontrollable instrument called Wall Street.  The potential pitfalls in this course are huge.  He is trusting Geithner to guide him through them.  God only knows how it will turn out.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:52:10 PM EST
    I agree with most of what you said except that I'm not sure Obama gets government other than on the academic level. I don't think he understand government on a practical everyday level. He doesn't understand how to make it work for the citizens even in the areas outside the financial area.

    Parent
    This is where lack of experience (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    and being surrounded "by really smart people" can really bite ya (us) in the a**.

    Parent
    I actually do think he understands (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    the tool of government.  I hate - am loathe - to raise the "community organizer" moniker, but I do think he has some ground-level experience that does in fact give him an insight into how government - or the absence of - can make a difference.  He has been a legislator long enough to have seen positive and negative impacts of various laws.  So even if you don't agree that he has great experience in government, I think you'd have to agree that he has arguably MORE experience in this area than he does in the financial world.  The extent to which he is a genius at government I am not prepared to and don't want to argue - just that he probably has a lot better understanding of that tool versus the financial tool - that's all.

    Parent
    That's a worrisome parallel (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:33:58 PM EST
    but a very good one, with McNamara having been a corporate bigwig from the business world.  So only the like of corporate lawyers feel capable of countering them?  I think lawyers underestimate themselves, then; the smart ones I know can use that law school training to cut through to the heart of almost any matter -- it's a process.

    I do not want to see the Geithner interview decades from now like McNamara's that says, golly, I wuz wrong, and I wish that the president had been a man of his own mind. . . .

    Parent

    McNamara did well during the (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:16:15 PM EST
    Cuban Missile Crisis....The best and brightest were the victims of their own success....

    Parent
    Lincoln did that of course (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:59 PM EST
    But, today, a lawyer able to absorb the details and be in a position to second guess the experts?....There is so much information out there.... As the saying goes, a good lawyer is only an expert on his or her last case...  

    Parent
    I don't think Obama knows enough (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    about the complexities to know when to call BS on these Wall Street Boyz; I think he knows the talking points, but that's not enough.

    It's hard, because it's not easy to grasp without significant education on the subject or industry experience.  He's relying on people who may or may not still be working in the interests of the industry from which they came, rather than the overall system.

    There are two things that worry me about Obama: (1) he likes being in with the In Crowd a little too much, and he wants this particular In Crowd to be saved by his hand so that he can be one of them, and (2) he believes too strongly in his own ability to BS his way through things he doesn't know enough about, and his ego cannot or will not allow him to admit when he is in over his head.

    I think he's getting terrible advice and doesn't know enough to know that - he thinks that the Wall Street Boyz being happy about his decisions is a good thing.

    Parent

    Which is why I brought up McNamara (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    and LBJ.  I hope that's not the case, but it could be and that would be more than just a tiny drag.

    Parent
    He'd rather continue to be "Cool"? (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:30:50 PM EST
    Yup, he's one cool dude.  

    Ok, now can we have a President?  

    Parent

    Accountability and transparency.... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    .... are not details!

    The Bush/Paulson plan lacked them just as much as the Obama/Geithner plan does.

    Parent

    I really hope you don't think that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    that is what I meant when I used the word "details".  What I meant was that the specific tactics that Geithner have chosen may or may not mean anything to Obama - he may not actually understand the differences between Geithner's plan and Krugman's protestations and may be relying on Geithner to deliver his "vision" assuming that his specific tactics will ultimately do that.  There are a ton of smart people in this world - brilliant people - who can't even begin to wrap their heads around what various bits and pieces of economic "detail" can mean to their lives.

    Parent
    I understand about tactics... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    .... but if transparency and accountability aren't part of Obama's "vision" -- and I see no evidence that they are for the banksters, as opposed to, say, the cities and states -- then I hope you will forgive me for classifying them as "details."

    Parent
    I happen to believe that as painful (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:33:38 PM EST
    and earth-shaking as it probably would be, the best thing to do is to totally expose all of the horrors as a means to actually moving on.  I don't think that Geithner who probably does have a reasonably good idea of what real horror lies behind all of this talk, would ever even consider my plan.  We both, I think, worry about the rumor mill - he about what people would say when faced with the truth and me about what people will make up to fill in the blanks without it.

    Parent
    +100, +1000 (none / 0) (#78)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:22 AM EST
    Totally expose everything. Confidence without the con, as it were.

    Parent
    So much credit (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    and like all great lawyers I know he is probably heavily invested in the notion of sticking with what you know

    Did he ever even practice law? I have no idea what he's thinking, ever. But evidence shows he is more heavily invested in appearances, so you are probably right that he is sticking to what he knows...smooth talking.

    Parent

    Campaigner in Chief? (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:36:59 PM EST
    I'm getting rather sick of my President, in the midst of a crisis, constantly being on television.  I would very much prefer that he was hunkered down in his office, with many different economic advisers, desperately trying to find the best solution for America.  

    He should be talking to the best economists in the country, not Jay Leno and Steve Kroft!   Does the President realize that the campaign is over, he's got the job.  Now he needs to do that job and get off the campaign trail, no matter how much fun he's having.  

    Parent

    Credit? (none / 0) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    Sheesh.

    I wish that I could read a post from you some day about an Obama related topic where your premise isn't entirely based on your apparent belief that everyone who doesn't have something outright mean or insulting to say about Obama is some sort of devoted fan with whom you must spar.

    The guy is just a guy to me.  He's got some good and some poor qualities as far as I am concerned.  The "good lawyer" reference I made was not about Obama - I was qualifying my statement - because I've known a few not so great lawyers who aren't smart enough to refer when they are out of their depth.  Nothing to do with Obama or my opinion of him as a lawyer.  But whatever.  Carry on.

    Parent

    On listening to the "experts" (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    Excellent point, inclusiveheart.

    Parent
    Remember FISA? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Romberry on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:59:58 PM EST
    Of course you remember. The question is rhetorical. I mention it because that was also something that Obama "seemed to get" but where his actions did not match his words.

    Following Glenn Greenwald at Salon, it is very clear that this is hardly an unusual state of affairs.

    Hope and change! Hope and change!

    Parent

    I know what you mean (none / 0) (#11)
    by aeguy on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:19:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Look (none / 0) (#46)
    by iluvela on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    the guy not only gets it - he is in on it. Anyone who thinks Obama is not in on every decision on the economy is just turning a convenient blind eye to the truth. He knows who all his advisers are both economic and foreign policy. Geithner and Summers calls are no surprise to Obama. In fact tonight once again Obama defended Geithner. They're tight.

    'We are at war' Kagen, Holder, and Panetta are no surprise to Obama either.

    His actions do not match the words? By now every one should know what Obama says publicly does not hardly ever mean what he will do (see a long list starting with FISA). In fact the opposite. He pulled the biggest con on Progressives in all of history. And is still smiling. And will still ask for your millions come 2012.

    I see Geithner is set to lay out the Obama plan Monday morning for the financial instruments that are bringing us all down. Not a lot of details yet. Just word that it is a Public-Private Investment Program. And:

    The initiative will seek to entice private investors, including big hedge funds, to participate by offering billions of dollars in low-interest loans to finance the purchases. The government will share the risks if the assets fall further in price.

    Wow! Sounds familiar. Right on the money of what I was posting today.

    And there is a regulatory provision seeking new takeover power as a Last Resort:

    Again! They are channeling me.

    A key part of that regulatory framework will give the government new resolution authority to take over troubled institutions that would pose a threat to the entire financial system if they failed.
    ...
    Under the new powers being sought by the administration, the treasury secretary could only seize a firm with the agreement of the president and the Federal Reserve.

    Linky

    Parent

    I get it now. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:10:14 PM EST
    1.  It is Obama who is to blame for the bad decisions, like letting the AIG bonuses for forward:

    Anyone who thinks Obama is not in on every decision on the economy is just turning a convenient blind eye to the truth. He knows who all his advisers are both economic and foreign policy. Geithner and Summers calls are no surprise to Obama.

    2.  And Obama lies, deliberately:

    By now every one should know what Obama says publicly does not hardly ever mean what he will do (see a long list starting with FISA). In fact the opposite. He pulled the biggest con on Progressives in all of history. And is still smiling. And will still ask for your millions come 2012.

    3.  But Obama really isn't to blame, because you have mind-control ability -- so it's all your fault, really:

    They are channeling me.

    Wow.  Just wow.

    Parent

    Do you get it Cream? (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by iluvela on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:36:14 PM EST
    Do you disagree that Obama knows what is happening in his own administration?

    Do you disagree that Obama has gone back on his word with many promises and proclamations?

    If so I sure would like to hear why you think that. But from your last posts to me I rather doubt that you will even answer as you are looking more and more like the all too typical drive-by poster.

    And channeling = mind control? LOL. You really ought to google before responding to something you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

    Now that I think about it you are probably just pissed because everything I posted today is coming to fruition tomorrow. Not my call. Obama's. I'm just in touch with reality and don't waste my time with nonsense.

    Parent

    Sorry, I find this post very amusing (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:30:36 PM EST
    Cream is not a cheerleader for Obama....You got  the wrong person here...

    I have often thought she was way too hard on Obama...

    "Drive by poster?"  Nope....  I have read many, many posts by Cream over the last year....

    You got your points backwards here....

     

    Parent

    Aha, now we have the evidence (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    to support the suspicion as to who is the drive-by  here, hmmm?  Who just spews such stuff but doesn't bother to actually read, engage, with others -- except the target, as evident in other threads.

    Let's see the comeback to your comment.  Ilvuela's are getting more over-the-top by the day, so this ought to be fun.

    Parent

    Never did say she was a cheerleader (none / 0) (#106)
    by iluvela on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    I simply asked two questions of her. Which of course she did not answer. Her tone was unmistakable in her original response to me. Total smartas*. So if she was questioning what I wrote I simply asked if she disagreed. No response yet and I'm not holding my breath. When they don't respond it was just a driveby from the get-go.

    Parent
    This is a joke, right? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Thanin on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:38:44 AM EST


    Parent
    It almost reads as one (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:11:57 AM EST
    alas, I think they're serious :-/

    I will say, this is good for a chuckle:

    Now that I think about it you are probably just pissed because everything I posted today is coming to fruition tomorrow.


    Parent
    Broke day trader :) (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 06:18:55 AM EST


    Parent
    The RTC worked out well (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    The Treasury plan may have echoes of that plan.....

    I think it is very hard to criticize the Treasury plan without seeing it first....There are a lot details and possibilities.  

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:10:33 AM EST
    Well your approval is a demerit in my mind. I have not found anything worth listening to in your comments.

    Parent
    Christina Romer (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:08:05 AM EST
    is a life-long academic, a scholar of the Great Depression....No obvious Wall Street connection.

    Romer has been a long-time Obama adviser....She is the one who came up with the number of saved or created jobs in the stimulus--which means she is emersed in the details and close to Obama....

    If Geithner ever goes, she may get the nod at Treasury.....

    Parent

    Here's something I read in my (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    local paper today, by the paper's media critic, that may ring true for a lot of people:

    As President Barack Obama extends his buy-my-economic-plans-please tour through 60 Minutes tonight and into Tuesday with a prime-time news conference, the question that begs to be asked is whether the president is spending enough time actually governing - as opposed to talking about governing on TV.

    [snip]

    You have to admit, Obama has been on TV a lot lately, starting Wednesday of last week on ESPN with his picks for the NCAA basketball championship, an impromptu news conference on the way out of Washington and a town-hall meeting in California that was carried by all the cable news channels.

    Then, there was a guest appearance on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno - and Garth Brooks - on Thursday. (At least, Leno didn't bring any guests over to the couch and make the president move down to make room nearest the late-night throne.)

    On Friday, Obama followed that appearance by going back to the friendly confines of 60 Minutes for an extensive interview with Steve Kroft - the formula he used so winningly during the election when things got tough. That conversation airs tonight at 7 on CBS.

    Tuesday night, he has another prime-time news conference scheduled, and there is yet more TV face-time after that, according to a report at Slate last week saying the White House is negotiating with the networks for airtime in 10-minute segments for TV versions of Franklin Roosevelt's Fireside Chats. The goal of the TV talks: to explain and sell Obama's economic proposals.


    [snip]

    Outside of an occasional misstep like his unfortunate comparison on The Tonight Show of his limitations as a bowler and the Special Olympics, Obama is by and large a superb TV performer. He and his advisers used the medium masterfully during the presidential campaign to ride a wave of anger about the economy and a downsized America into office.

    That anger, however, has continued to build into a dangerous outrage in recent weeks and months. And now, perhaps, the only way for the president to stay on the right side of it is for him to get back on the TV tiger and ride it for all it is worth - insisting that he is angry, too, and that he has a set of plans that will see us through these dangerous times.

    Meanwhile, though, back in Washington, who will be doing the real work of designing and implementing those plans so that last-minute loopholes aren't inserted by old-time politicians to protect their corporate contributors at taxpayer expense? Who will be doing the real work of governing - rather than performing nightly on our TV screens?

    The only person I am more tired of seeing on TV talking and selling something is Billy May.

    Has he given any specifics on his (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    economic plans? Budget and Wall Street? What are his selling points? I missed 60 minutes . . . .

    As President Barack Obama extends his buy-my-economic-plans-please tour through 60 Minutes tonight and into Tuesday with a prime-time news conference

    He had people out this weekend drumming up support and something about a pledge, but is all this hype just expected blind following or is there some meat around here somewhere? Do we the people count yet?

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:56:51 PM EST
    but at least Billy May is selling something that I'm mildly interested in and something that might actually help do housework or something. I am not interested in handing Wall Street billions more dollars that they'll use to line their pockets.

    And the fireside chat thing is pure Jimmy Carter. Obama can talk all he wants but it seems a lot of people actually want action and not words.

    Parent

    Is Billy May ShamWow?! (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:00:08 PM EST
    and does he also do that lil' chopper thingy?

    Or is he the grout guy? lol!~

    Parent

    OMG I can't stand the ShamWow (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    guy, either...

    Billy May is OxiClean and Orange Glo, among other things; the products are pretty good, but I don't understand why he has to shout at us.

    Parent

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    At least Oxiclean has a track record, lol!~  ;)

    Parent
    I love the Shaw Wow guy (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:34:42 PM EST
    I find him funny and engaging.....

    Cynicism abounds....

    Parent

    I love Vince Offer too! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    He's just odd enough to be interesting.  My favorite line of his, "you're gonna love my nuts".   I also like it when he throws the chopper thing over his shoulder into the sink behind him.  A Julia Childs wannabe1  

    Parent
    Exactly what I just posted above! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:41:17 PM EST
    I am sick of Campaigner in Chief.  I want him hard at work, not yucking it up all over television.   He's clearly having fun, while the rest of us are in deep doo doo.  It's not working for me.

    Parent
    I considered whether to post or not (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Amiss on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:50:56 PM EST
    I was beginning to feel embarassed at myself and have been fussing at myself for feeling this way. Thank God I am not alone! I want to see a Leader not a campaigner! We went through the longest campaign in history I think and now it feels and sounds like more of the same and I am beginning to tune him out simply because I am sick of the same ole same ole.

    Parent
    "Gallows humor"? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    His laughing/chuckling didn't strike me as appropriate.  I understand and agree with what he said about the need for gallows humor amongst his staff - but it'd be better if he kept it off camera.  It came across kind of glib, which is not such a good idea in these times.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:13:08 PM EST
    The only person I am more tired of seeing on TV talking and selling something is Billy May.

    But that was long before Obama got elected. A year ago you loathed the sound of Obama's voice, so it is no big surprise for any that have read your comments over the last year that your opinion has not changed.

    This is the first time that Obama has shown he can use TV not just to get elected, but also to govern. You can call it theater, because that's what it is. But that's still an important part of being President in the final days of this TV age.

    David Zurawik Feb 24, 2009

    Parent

    Obama hasn't given me any reason to (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:59:38 PM EST
    change my opinion, squeaky.  He's in love with the sound of his own voice, which I guess for some is like a siren song that blinds them to the fact that on the other side of all that talk is usually just more talk.

    What's beginning to happen now is what was bound to happen - the talk is not working magic on the issues the way it worked in the campaign.  No surprise there - governing and leading is not the same as campaigning, Zurawik's opinion notwithstanding.

    I know you don't agree with me on much of anything, and that's okay; Obama can saturate the airwaves, but I don't think that's going to solve the problems.  

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:14:33 PM EST
    Most of us see him as a politician, and a democrat who does things we do not like and does things we do like. It is up to us to push him to move the country in the direction we would like.

    People who think he can do no wrong and people who that think he can do no right, seem to be missing a lot, imo. Two forms of the same type of blindness.

    Parent

    I think he has great potential to do a lot (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:26:41 PM EST
    of good, and in fact, he has done some things with the stroke of his pen that have been steps in the right direction.

    I do not want him to fail.  I fear, though, that my idea of success will not be the same as his, and that his successes will be more right-leaning and weak than what will be good for the country.

    I don't think that support for support's sake moves things in the direction we want it to go - or at least, in the direction I want it to go.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:35:56 PM EST
    Blind support is thoughtless but so is blind cudgeling. Obama is just a person who we hope will get it right more than not. Certainly for me he will always be to the right of me on many issues, as almost all Democrats are, as the country is. But he is nowhere near the catastrophe BushCo was or McCain would have been, I am certain of that.

    I think it is good to cheer or boo depending on the performance, otherwise I may as well be asleep.

    Parent

    How on earth can (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:58 PM EST
    you judge Obama a failure at this point?

     

    Parent

    To some people here, Obama failed at losing to (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by steviez314 on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 06:03:12 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton.  And for that he can never be forgiven.

    Parent
    I always am amused (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    if interested at seeing Zurawik quoted.  I went to school with the guy.  Nice guy, smart guy, but . . . isn't it interesting how people who never showed any interest in politics, media, etc., turn out?  

    I know he's considered a good critic.  I'll have to read some more to see something innovative. :-)

    Parent

    He was just fine on Leno. What is not fine (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:27:10 AM EST
    is the shrieky-hollywood-high-school-gossip US media horse media noise machine tabloiding 5 seconds out of 20 minutes in order to avoid reporting anything and everything else.  It is not okay that our media behaves that way, nor that we let them get away with it.  

     

    I like (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 07:03:41 AM EST
      that Obama exploits venues that allow him to speak directly to the people. Call it campaigning if you like but using the "bully pulpit" is one of the primary resources a President has to promote his agenda. A President who does not seek to enhance his personal popularity and then use his personal popularity as a "weapon" is unlikely to be an effective President.

      Now, that I agree with his choice of means won't necessarily translate into approval of his substantive agenda but taking his case (or cases) to the people in the hope he can sway popular opinion and exert pressure on those seeking to stymy his agenda is just as easily called leadership as campaigning.

    It's nice that he's staying in touch (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    with the people, but his solutions to some of our biggest problems still totally suck.  With our economy in such dire straights how can he/we justify anything to do with Afghanistan?  At this point all I can see taking place that would make any sort of responsible fiscal sense is to leave both Afghanistan and Iraq as responsibly as possible and amp up our intelligence gathering around the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  It isn't like we didn't know they were coming for us before 9/11, it's just that nobody did anything serious about it.  The evidence was right there and an FBI agent had already caught on and was ignored.

    Much like his predecessor Bush... (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    he can't lie and steal with a straight face...the chuckles and laughs he called "gallows humor" were the truth slipping through the canned lies...it's a big fat joke and the it's on us.

    At least (none / 0) (#100)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:19:08 AM EST
      You get to see and hear him and draw conclusions from that. He's not doing a very good job of selling his agenda to you, but that's different than criticizing him for trying to promote his agenda through media appearances.

      Maybe we should add execution in the bully pulpit to the substance of his sermons as things to be considered apart from  using it.

    Parent

    He's a politician... (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    I expect him to whore it up for the cameras...right or wrong.

    It wouldn't matter if was doing his job to right the ship...but he isn't, he's tilting the ship even more, and its dangerously close to capsizing.

    Parent

    Is this (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:55:01 PM EST
    a record? Wasn't he on 60 minutes a few months ago? I wonder about this. Are the poll numbers showing something that he feels he needs to constantly go on TV?

    He's doing what he likes to do, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:46:00 PM EST
    Campaign.  It's what he likes to do and what he's good at.  He's having fun, hoping to sell himself and his programs once again.  

    We all like to do what we do best.  He's best at campaigning, that's what he's done for most of his adult life and that's what he's going to continue to do.  

    (Sorry, I'm just sick of hearing about his television spots, nearly everyday now.  I'm not feeling very good about things right now.)  

    Parent

    What he feels he is good at (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:01:17 PM EST
    is campaigning. He had to spend tens of millions more than his opponents to either lose or barely win. He had to do a lot of damage control. But, the primaries are over and he's POTUS with tons of serious work to do.

    I am thinking he wants to be the guy everyone wants to have a beer with so they aren't thinking about the weaknesses in his leadership.


    Parent

    "The primaries are over" (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    Yup....some are still there as are you--as shown by this post....

    Some will never forgive him for getting the nomination.....

    Parent

    That's downright funny (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:14:23 AM EST
    So, just because he won, and he's a "D" we are all supposed to just cheer every move he makes no matter what!

    Got it.


    Parent

    Not even close to what I said (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:11:54 AM EST
    One can focus on the "primaries," as you do in your post, and see Obama through the jaundiced eye of not being the appropriate nominee....

    Parent
    And, what you accuse me of is nowhere near (none / 0) (#109)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    justified based on what I said.

    He said he was the best choice for this gig, and that he was ready for all the challenges ahead. No surprises were awaiting him when he went into the oval office. Expecting him to deliver on those promises is a necessity. Having held our breath and hoped the lives we knew would survive the last 8 years mandates we stay on top of the repair phase.


    Parent

    Campaigning is the President's job (none / 0) (#92)
    by BigElephant on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 08:04:10 AM EST
    The job of the President is to get popular support for the executive branch (with respect to domestic policy).  I think what most people miss is that half of the game with domestic policy is consumer confidence.  No money has been destroyed.  It's that credit has evaporated as a result of confidence.  

    Now maybe it was ill-placed confidence to begin with, in which case, the role of this President really is to reset expectations.  This is the job of a campaigner.  Anyone who tells you that there is some economic plan that will save the day is simply selling you snake oil.

    Parent

    I think someone who keeps dressing up (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 08:31:17 AM EST
    the same bad plan in different outfits in the hope that this time America will fall in love with it needs to spend more time at the drawing board, more time questioning the interests and loyalties of his economic team, and less time on the TV trying to wear us down.  

    With each passing day, it becomes more and more apparent that Obama is essentially allowing the financial industry to dictate how it wants to be fixed, regardless of the real likelihood that it will be to the detriment of the American people and will hinder economic recovery.

    Obama's very close to being subsumed into an economic echo chamber that will make it very hard for him to ever push back or reject any of the advice he is getting; the expected boom in bank stocks today will no doubt be considered proof that he is on the right track, and will be the next talking point.

    I can't be the only one who sees distinct parallels between the messaging coming out of this WH on the economy and the financial system and the messaging that came out of the Bush WH on Iraq.


    Parent

    You may be right... (none / 0) (#96)
    by BigElephant on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    but you may not be.  Spending time on TV talking about this is critical. With that said, I do agree with you that the plan unveiled this morning doesn't seem all that great.  But I'm sure there's plenty I don't know about it.  I certainly haven't read it.  And one thing I know is that if you don't read it, the devil is in the details.  

    Here's an idea.  Next time someone professes anger about the plan (any plan, for that matter), ask them to tell you five concrete things about it.  Sure Paul Krugman gets it.  But average Joe blogger on the internet talking is usually just an echo chamber for their own spokesperson.

    I applaud the president for speaking about it, but I do wish they spoke with more substance, because most people aren't going to read it themselves.  I'd love for CSPAN to do a two hour segment breaking down the various budget, plans, bailouts (each one getting its own two hour segment, so we can get at least a little bit of depth).  The people need to be educated.  Otherwise it's just one echo chamber to another...

    Parent

    That's what worries me. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:23:34 AM EST
    Talking up his plan(s) is good.  I don't think doing so on entertainment tv aka Leno was good, and I don't think he did well, but that's aside from it.  Doing so in serious venues is a good idea.  (So is something like your idea -- or using the vaunted Obama campaign alternative media, and it is worrisome that those promises are not kept, too.)

    But talking up his plan(s) is good -- and he's good at doing so, of course, in general.  So when he is not good at it in terms of these economic plans, and when what we can read about it from minds I respect say it's not good either, the concern is the substance.  That is, the conclusion I can make is that the substance of the plan is not good.

    Maybe it is good, and his campaign staff is just not up to communicating while governing.  That would be the less worrisome alternative, but still a worry.  We'll hope for change in all this, for the good of us all.

    Parent

    Also a worry, though probably just talk (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    by Obama to Kroft is that Obama said who knew a year ago that the economy would be the issue?

    A lot of us knew, and that's why we worried even then and wanted a candidate with experience more attuned to economic issues.  

    But again, that probably was just more PR to buy him breathing room, to get the media and the public off his back while his staff works on the issue.  If so, it again wasn't wise PR.  But maybe it will work; he's still in the proverbial first 100 days that we're giving him to get a better handle on the PR, at least, of governing.  (Btw, I think that the idea of tv time for 10-minute talks ala FDR's Fireside Chats is a better one than the Leno interview or even the 60 Minutes interview, with Kroft as intermediary and with his rep since the campaign.  Better would be the FDR mode of no intermediary -- and of several brief explications, not a long lecture.)

    Parent

    Poll numbers are down (none / 0) (#48)
    by iluvela on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    but still above 50. According to the last Pew poll he is losing both Republicans and Independents.

    Democrats soon to follow.

    Parent

    Gallup: 65% approval for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:52 PM EST
    His approval went up according to Gallup last week.

    Research 2000, the independent firm that does polling for Markos, and which was pretty decent in 2008, has Obama at 67%.

    Parent

    Wow. That didn't take long. (none / 0) (#64)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:03:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Youre right... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Thanin on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:47:46 AM EST
    it didnt take long for iluvela to be proven wrong on this.  Hat tip to MKS.

    Parent
    lame response to Cheney (none / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:13:46 PM EST
    1.  The alleged terrorists are still in detention at GITMO; is Obama mainly outraged at the lack of a speedy trial here?
    2.  He can't say that Bush policies didn't keep us safe; for better or for worse, there were no attacks on US soil or even on US embassies, etc.  North Korea didn't kidnap US reporters.  No one bombed the USS Cole again.  Maybe he doesn't like the US policies, but that's another story.  


    This is a good example of (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:44:01 PM EST
    the difference between correlation and causation.....

    Parent
    When I was at Dkos the other day (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:23:13 PM EST
    I noticed his approval rating is still 67%.  Even after all this - that seems pretty incredible.

    Is that all (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    the polls or just one? Kos has a habit of just picking the best one. What I saw was 60 when you put them all together.

    Parent
    It is the poll that Markos (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:47:52 PM EST
    pays for by Research 2000, an independent professional polling firm that had a decent track record last election cycle...

    And Gallup has Obama at 65% today, up three points or so over last week....

    And, you know, it is just crazy to center a primary strategy around caucus states....  

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:25:17 AM EST
    is nothing exceptional believe it or not. And another poster said Ras had him at 55% so there you go. All this is pretty typical for the first few months.

    Parent
    A poll is the last thing on my mind! (none / 0) (#17)
    by aeguy on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:29:20 PM EST


    Parent
    We are still in the honeymoon (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    phase.  What I find remarkable is how many people are actually placing stock in that approval rating and acting like it really means something.  If he is still at 67% in June or August and he still hasn't achieved much, that's something to talk about.  But high ratings during the first hundred days isn't imo a very big deal or a good reliable indicator of what is to come.

    Parent
    As well we know from presidents (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:37:22 PM EST
    who had ratings as high or higher at this point.  And then took us down terrible paths.

    The problem for Obama is that the nasty news cycle is so accelerated now, and thus so is the American mood -- and perhaps so is the spiralling speed of this economic mess -- that he may not have 100 days.  Nor may many Americans.

    Parent

    I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    Basically what I do for a living is watch the public and the media's impact on the public and I am not so sure that the news cycle changes the 100 days equation all that much.  I think that the people drive that first 100 days more than the media do.  

    I don't think it matters how much the media gripes about one thing or another at the begining.  The people tend to stick with the person that the majority have elected and the rest have accepted for the time being.  

    The real trouble begins later when everyone gets frustrated, tired or simply are no longer feeling all warm and fuzzy about the person.  It isn't all that different from the early stages of love - its all great and even the annoying things are attractive and "cute" - then one day it changes and the annoying things are simply annoying.  No one knows how or why this happens in the way it does, but it does.  

    Anyhow, I think he'll get his first hundred days.  The only thing that no one can really predict is what the second hundred will be like when the falling-in-love hormones have evaporated and people wake up feeling cranky about their lives.  Will he still be seen as a source of hope or will his annoying qualities overshadow that hope?  That we can't predict.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    as it was my field -- media-watching -- for a considerable time, too, and I try to still keep up with it.  So I'm agreeing with a lot of others, but we'll see.

    That the second hundred days will be a different season -- and media season and employment season -- may have some impact.  I know it will in my state, where tourism is the number-one industry.  Or it was, anyway.  The jobless rate, already high among the states owing to the devastation to the number-two industry, manufacturing, will be awful.

    Parent

    Rasmussen has it in the mid 50s. (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:04:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Thanin on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:50:15 AM EST
    and dont they use a larger sample of republicans in their pool?

    Parent
    I don't know. I think they are a little too (none / 0) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:30:24 AM EST
    negative. But I also find it unlikely that Obama's numbers are improving all that much.

    Parent
    I'll agree to that. (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Thanin on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:31:25 AM EST


    Parent
    I thought he was okay (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    on Gitmo. He kept highlighting that the policies are making the Arab/Muslim world hate America. And he basically said our criminal justice system, with due process, is sufficient to handle those remaining.

    I also noticed he didn't preface his Cheney remarks with the standard compliment followed by criticism, it was just criticism.

    I half-listened to the economy portion...seemed to me his remarks were geared towards assuring the auto industry he's not abandoning them.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:30:06 PM EST
    I liked that he said we need an exit strategy from Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Isn't that his job to determine an exit strategy? (none / 0) (#62)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:55:24 PM EST
    Did he say when his administration might have an exit strategy?  

    Parent
    talk to me obama (none / 0) (#87)
    by da lurker on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:54:01 AM EST
    i guess some people think obama spent a whole day only going on leno (the only way to reach a large percentage of people), spent the next day having supper with his family.  where does he have time to go to the bathroom.  (of course hes probably expected to be working on the financial problem between wipes.  its funny, have an illegal war (children dying), medical crisis (children dying), ect... i see what it takes to get some of you liberals motivated, m-o-n-e-y.

    talk to me obama

    OK (none / 0) (#102)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:33:07 AM EST
      You believe he has the wrong (or at least a poor)  agenda and obviously are not impressed by the manner in which he  presented himself while promoting it.

      Others  might think the substance was good but share your disappoinment with the delivery. Still others might have been impressed with the delivery but did like the substance. Likely there are significant numbers who approved of both, and, also who like you disapproved of both (though I would guess most of the last group probably don't share your politics).

      All of that is not only OK, it's healthy. If nothing else when a President speaks to a broad audience it spurs more people to think more about the subject.

       I think Bush "hid"  during his presidency and would disagree with your view this is more of the same. bush gave a televised address on his decision to initiate the bailout, but did he ever  answer questions directly in front of the people?

    Seems many people are upset (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    Obama's even upsetting the "American Idol" crowd who adored him.

    WHEN the White House announced last week that President Barack Obama will be returning to the nation's television screens on Tuesday for a prime-time press conference that will postpone the latest episode of American Idol - the talent show watched by 25m viewers - fans of the programme were quick to respond.

    "Stop, please stop, Mr O, we can't take much more," one angry viewer wrote on an Idol-related website. "Not again!" complained another. "It's the same speech he's been giving for the past year."

    There were dark mutterings that by commandeering evening programming only a few days after he appeared on Jay Leno's popular late-night chat show, Obama was "just like Fidel Castro [of Cuba] and Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] - always on camera, always giving speeches and lecturing".

    The barbed response to the prospect of yet another mass-media dose of Obama's economic prescriptions underlined the dangers the president is facing as he struggles to sell his recovery efforts to a country seething with anger and anxiety over the costs, effectiveness and potential abuse of the government's trillion-dollar bailout programme.



    Wonderful fun, as expected (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    -- since the content of my comment was mainly your content.  Do you read others' comments at all?

    As for your questions, as MKS says, you would not have to ask if you had read my comments here.

    President Obama on "60 Minutes" | 111 comments (111 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment