The Congressional Asshat Caucus

Several members of the GOP Congressional Anti Terrorism Anti Muslim Caucus decided to hold a big news conference yesterday and accuse the group CAIR with a conspiracy to "infiltrate" the government with Muslims. Their evidence? A book written by wingnut World Net Daily author Dave Gaubatz who made this statement last year.

“a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for Sharia Law.”

Please for the love God keep giving these people microphones so the rest of the nation can see what the Republican Party has become.

Get Right

President Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown going after Iran this morning.

In The Company Of Genius

It seems that some of the smartest men on the planet also believe that President Obama did a great job at his press conference last night. Check out Paul Krugman's revue as well as Johnathan Cohn's more extensive assessment.

Suck. On. That. MSNBC!

We Need A Better Pundit Class

I will be posting the video of President Obama's press conference from this evening shortly but I wanted to just take a minute out to ask a question of Howard Fineman who helped cover the event on MSNBC.

What the fuck?!

Here is what Howard Fineman had to say after the press conference.

Fineman: Not a lot of news. He didn't declare more specifically, forcefully what he wanted to see in the bill... that was absent. He needs to be more excited, about the future. He seemed tired. Same list of non-talking points. Missed an opportunity. Needed excitement.

Could have to do w/ the fact that he's in the middle of negotiations. Didn't want to show his cards? Then put it in human terms. Not like Ronald Reagan telling stories of people.

Now I watched the presser live, but I waited until a transcript came up just to be sure. Lets just see if President Obama avoided putting health care reform in human terms.

This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that they wouldn’t pay a dime for her cancer treatment, who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.


This is about the middle-class college graduate from Maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt.

This is about every family, every business, and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that Washington has failed to solve for decades.

This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can’t afford to wait any longer for reform. They’re counting on us to get this done. They’re looking to us for leadership. And we can’t let them down.

snip

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been pushing Congress to pass health care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that, if you don’t, there’s a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?

OBAMA: A couple of points. Number one, I’m rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, “Can you help?”

So I’ve got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, “Our daughter just found out she’s got leukemia and, if I don’t do something soon, we just either are going to go bankrupt or we’re not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs.”

And in a country like ours, that’s not right. So that’s part of my rush.

Either Howard Fineman was high, or he didn't really watch the presser for him to make such an inaccurate statement about what President Obama did and didn't say.

Now I think I have figured it out as far as why the pundits weren't all jazzed up after the press conference as opposed to regular folks. Its probably because they expect President Obama to "preach" every time like he did last week to the NAACP. Well that is just ignorant. The man adapts his tone and mannerisms to his audience, but the message is still the same. And his message was on point and powerful tonight whether he had an amen corner going or not. I guess that is what happens some times when you set the bar so high, but its also why I think they should have snap polls after President Obama's press conferences much like they did after the Presidential debates last year. That keeps the pundit class in check and helps to gauge what public reaction really was to the speech rather than have a bunch of Villagers tell us what they THINK people thought about his performance.

Oh and expect the asshole Villagers to focus more on President Obama's accurate statement about the stupid arrest of Harvard professor Skip Gates than on his push for health care reform.

Again video to come later.

Update: Ok I have the video now but a couple of points about the EPIC FAIL that is MSNBC tonight. First every single pundit they had on decided that President Obama looked "tired" or wasn't "energetic" enough. Based on what, who the fuck knows or cares. But just remember that these were the same jack asses who thought he was losing the election last year because he wasn't listening to their advice.

Then we have Chris Matthews totally fucking up the common facts of the Skip Gates arrest so as to make it seem like its all a mystery. In both the police report and Professor Gates' account he showed the officer his ID proving he was in his house. But of course Tweety doesn't let facts get in the way of him complaing about President Obama calling what the stupid assed cop did, stupid.

And finally we have the coup de grace from Big Ed, whereby he proceeds to say he was "upset" because President Obama didn't talk about a public option.

Oh really?

QUESTION: Thank you. To follow up on Jake’s question earlier, sir, so many Americans are concerned that this plan, particularly the government insurance, the public option, would lead to reduced benefits or reduced coverage.

Two questions. One, can you guarantee that this legislation will lock in and say the government will never deny any services, that that’s going to be decided by the doctor and the patient, and the government will not deny any coverage? And, secondarily, can you, as a symbolic gesture, say that you and the Congress will abide by the same benefits in that public option?

OBAMA: Well, number one, not only in the public option, but the insurance regulation that we want to put in place will largely match up with what members of Congress are getting through the federal employee plan.

That’s a good example of what we’re trying to build for the American people. The same thing that Congress enjoys, which is they go, there’s a marketplace of different plans that they can access, depending on what’s best for their families.

Now, one of the plans that we talked about is a public option. And part of the reason we want to have a public option is just to help keep the insurance companies honest. If the insurance companies are providing good care -- and, as it is, they’re going to be more regulated so that they can’t deny you care because of a pre-existing condition or because you changed jobs or because they’ve decided you’re too sick and not a good risk -- you know, with regulation, there’s already going to be some improvement in the insurance industry. But having a public plan out there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative costs, that you can get an even better deal, that’s going to incentivize the private sector to do even better. And that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing.

Now, you know, there had been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits. Right now, at the time when everybody’s getting hammered, they’re making record profits and premiums are going up.

What’s the constraint on that? How can -- how can you ensure that those costs aren’t being passed onto employers or passed onto employees, the American people, ordinary middle-class families, in a way that over time is going to make them broke? Well, part of the way is to make sure that there’s some competition out there.

Just to make matters worse Big Ed decided to play a clip to try to make his point about President Obama not mentioning the public option and its actually just the tail end of the answer I just block quoted. Way to go Ed, I already have a hard enough time watching your shitty show. Now I have no choice but to turn away since you're going to be flat out making shit up.

I really would like a sample of whatever in the hell they were smoking at MSNBC tonight though.

Without further adeiu here is the video.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Conspicuously Absent

As shitty a job as our mainstream media is doing at actually bringing us the news, its amazing the sense of entitlement and territorialism they still harbor towards anyone who they see as below them.

Such is the case with the media's faux poutrage over President Obama calling on Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney at Tuesday's presser. Nevermind that President Obama did nothing to hide the fact of WHY he was calling on Pitney.

THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

You can't get much more transparent than that.

Yet and still the masters of the universe, in their own minds at least, were mortally offended that President Obama would dare pick a lowly blogger (who just so happened to have been changing the game with his coverage of the situation/revolution in Iran with new media) rather one of the their annointed bretheren. So they decide to make it into some kind of a faux outrage full of false equivalences. They want to make this situations some how akin to President George W. Bush's ACTUAL long term White House Press Core plant "Jeff Gannon"

James Dale Guckert (born 1957) posed as a conservative columnist under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon and was given credentials as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, eventually being employed by the news organization Talon News during the latter part of this period. Gannon first gained national attention during a presidential press conference on January 26, 2005, when he asked United States President George W. Bush a question that some in the press corps considered "so friendly it might have been planted."[1] Gannon routinely obtained daily passes to White House briefings, attending four Bush press conferences and appearing regularly at White House press briefings. Although he did not qualify for a Congressional press pass, Gannon was given daily passes to White House press briefings "after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number."[2] Gannon came under public scrutiny for his lack of a journalistic background prior to his work with Talon[3][4] and his involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name "Bulldog". Gannon resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005. Continuing to use the name Gannon, he has since created his own official homepage and worked for a time as a columnist for the Washington Blade newspaper, where he confirmed he was gay after he was outed as a homosexual prostitute.[5]

Now so far I have seen at least 3 columns in major MSM newspapers framing this situations as some kind of scandal or bad idea for the White House. I won't excerpt from them but you can read CBS's Mark Knoller's offering here, The Washington Post's Dana Millbank's offering here, and the New York Times' Kate Phillips offering here. They have two things in common.

1. They all come off look like whiny little bitches.

2. They do not include the text of the question which is the subject of the columns.

How in the hell can you try to call out the President for having a "media plant" asking him a question without including the actual question? Isn't that, like, a major part of the story? And are we supposed to believe its a coincidence that none of these three columns included the text of the question?

Sorry, not buying it.

Lets look at the question itself.

Q: Yes, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

Now that my friends is what you call the OPPOSITE of a softball question. Add in the fact that it was a question offered from an Iranian suffering through the government's crackdown in Iran and you would have to say it was at least one of, if not THE, most important question of the presser. Yet the mainstream media prima donas don't even think the question was worth referring to.

One has to wonder why.

Is it because they know that if a reader were to actually see the question and realize that it wasn't a softball and that it was legitimate that they would quickly lose interest in these assholes' hurt feelings?

I know my answer to the question, you are welcome to weigh in with your own.

Here is how Mark Knoller responded to my queries about it on Twitter.

his question wasn't the story. the WH arrangements for him to ask his question was the story.

Now what did those arrangements consist of? Did they fly him cross country? Did they give him an alias and a cover story as Bush did with gay male prostitute/media plant James Guckert/Jeff Gannon?

Nope. They just called him and said they "might" call on him for a question.

The sad thing is I normally enjoy Knoller's work. But this is what we call where I am from, a bitch move.

And no matter how they try to make it into something else it all comes down to Pitney getting an opportunity that they didn't get. Shame on President Obama for recognizing a person who was doing the job of reporting on Iran better than the rest of the establishment bums.

Nah, shame on the haters for giving up their journalistic integrity to lash out at the White House because they feel "disrespected".

If you don't like it I have a solution for you.

DO YOUR DAMN JOB BETTER.

That is all.

I'M the President, Bitches!

It was great to hear President Obama clap back on the right wing stooges which now inhabit the White House press core at today's press conference. It was particularly satisfying to hear him absolutely destroy some of the meme's put out there by Republicans in Congress who are opposing his agenda. All in all I thought he brought it today and got the messaging back.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Some highlights from the New York Times transcript:

First here is an exchange between the President and Niko Pitney of HuffPo whom has been doing a grat job basically live blogging the Iranian revolution and who set of a bunch of faux outrage by Villagers and right wingers because he was given a question:

Since we're on Iran, I know Niko Pitney (ph) is here from the Huffington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

MR. OBAMA: Niko (ph), I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

QUESTION: Yes, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.

What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States.

And that's why I've been very clear, ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say, unequivocally, that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that -- that spans cultures, spans borders.

And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that -- that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

Next up we have Major Garrett channelling his inner asshole and trying to make news whom instead comes away looking foolish after President Obama corrects the record.

Major Garrett? Where's Major?

QUESTION: Right here, sir.

In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long?

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: I don't think that's accurate. Track what I've been saying. Right after the election I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was.

As soon as violence broke out -- in fact, in anticipation of potential violence -- we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people.

So we've been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we've approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what's happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House, that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people.

And so we've been very consistent the first day, and we're going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States, this is about an issue of the Iranian people.

What we've also been consistent about is saying that there are some universal principles, including freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, making sure that governments are not using coercion and violence and repression in terms of how they interact with peaceful demonstrators. And we have been speaking out very clearly about that fact.

Classic PWNAGE Aimed at Chip Saltsman's right wing framed question.

MR. OBAMA: Chip?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Following up on Major's question, some Republicans on Capitol Hill, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example, have said that up to this point your response on Iran has been timid and weak.

Today it sounded a lot stronger. It sounded like the kind of speech John McCain has been urging you to give, saying that those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history, referring to an iron fist in Iran, deplore, appalled, outraged.

Were you influenced at all by John McCain and Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid and weak?

MR. OBAMA: What do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

Look, the -- you know, I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues. And, you know, I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail.

But only I'm the president of the United States. And I've got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries.

snip

QUESTION: By speaking so strongly today, aren't you giving the leadership in Iran the fodder to make those arguments...

MR. OBAMA: You know...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... that it is about the United States?

MR. OBAMA: Look, I mean, I think that we can parse this as much as we want. I think if you look at the statements that I've made, they've been very consistent. I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplored the violence.

And so I think that in the hothouse of Washington, there may be all kinds of stuff going back and forth in terms of Republican critics versus the administration.

That's not what is relevant to the Iranian people. What's relevant to them right now is are they going to have their voices heard. And, you know, frankly, a lot of them aren't paying a lot of attention to what's being said on Capitol Hill and probably aren't spending a lot of time thinking about what's being said here.

They're trying to figure out how can they make sure justice is served in Iran.

Here is what might have been the most imporatant answer of the presser for progressives though and that was President Obama's pushback on the right wing talking points about a public plan option in health care reform.

QUESTION: Wouldn't that drive private insurance out of business?

MR. OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If -- if private -- if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

Now, the -- I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.

But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you've seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan.

And this was an absolute ass kicking handed out to Chuck Todd. It looked like a Principal disciplining a kindergartener.

MR. OBAMA: Chuck Todd?

QUESTION: Mr. President, I want to follow up on Iran. You have avoided, twice, spelling out consequences. You've hinted that there would be from the international community, if they continue to violate -- and you said "violate these norms." You seemed to hint that there -- there are human rights violations taking place.

MR. OBAMA: I'm not hinting. I think that when a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car, that's a problem.

QUESTION: Then why won't you spell out the consequences that the Iranian people...

MR. OBAMA: Because I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?

QUESTION: Shouldn't -- I mean, shouldn't the world...

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: I answered -- I answered...

QUESTION: ... present regime know that there are consequences?

MR. OBAMA: I answered your question, which is that we don't yet know how this is going to play out. OK?

I will be the first to admit that President Obama hasn't been perfect so far, but he is a HELL of a lot better than any of the alternatives. Sometimes it takes days like today to remind all of us of that.

President Obama's 100 Days Presser

President Obama did a fantastic job in his press conference last night. Here are a few choice excerpts and I will follow up with some key points:


Jake Tapper tries to get President Obama to admit that the Bush Administration sanctioned torture which would then cause a feeding frenzy over the issue but Obama doesn't fall into the trap.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

Obama: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

Mark Knoller tries to carry water for Dick Cheney but President Obama ain't having it.

Question: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake's question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" not only protected the nation but saved lives?

And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

Obama: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go to the details of them. But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question.

Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

Chip Reid asks about Arlen Specter switching parties but President Obama is able to transition in his answer to talking about how bipartisanship should be defined between himself and the GOP. I think his point about compromise was huge because its something that's hardly ever taken into account on cable news.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. On Senator Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, you said you were thrilled; I guess nobody should be surprised about that.

But how big a deal is this, really? Some Republicans say it is huge. They believe it's a game-changer. They say that, if you get the 60 votes in the Senate, that you will be able to ride roughshod over any opposition and that we're on the verge of, as one Republican put it, "one-party rule."

Do you see it that way? And, also, what do you think his switch says about the state of the Republican Party?

Obama: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter. I think he's got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.

And I think he's always had a strong independent streak. I think that was true when he was a Republican; I think that will be true when he's a Democrat.

He was very blunt in saying I couldn't count on him to march lockstep on every single issue. And so he's going to still have strong opinions, as many Democrats in the Senate do.

I've been there. It turns out, all the senators have very strong opinions. And I don't think that's going to change.

I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Democratic caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues, like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclinations were to work with us, but he was feeling pressure not to.

And I think the vote on the recovery act was a classic example. Ultimately, he thought that was the right thing to do. And he was fiercely berated within his own party at the time for having taken what I consider to be a very sensible step. So -- so I think it's, overall, positive.

Now, I am under no illusions that suddenly I'm going to have a rubber-stamp Senate. I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything, and that's how it should be.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Every senator who's there, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, I think truly believes that they are doing their absolute best to represent their constituencies.

And we've got regional differences, and we've got some parts of the country that are affected differently by certain policies. And those have to be respected, and there's going to have to be compromise and give-and-take on all of these issues.

I do think that, to my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work and the American people voted to change.

But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together. And I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow.

On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the costs of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position.

And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.

If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can't resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

Ed Henry asks a classic Republican talking point question on abortion. President Obama turns the talking point on its head.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

Obama: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.

BET gets a question. How's that for change? LOL

Question: Thank you, Mr. President.

As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse. The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent.

My question to you tonight is given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what's the timetable for us to see tangible results?

Obama: Well, keep in mind that every step we're taking is designed to help all people. But, folks who are most vulnerable are most likely to be helped because they need the most help.

So when we passed the Recovery Act, for example, and we put in place provisions that would extend unemployment insurance or allow you to keep your health insurance even if you've lost your job, that probably disproportionately impacted those communities that had lost their jobs. And unfortunately, the African-American community and the Latino community are probably overrepresented in those ranks.

When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the Children's Health Insurance Program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families simply because they're the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.

So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.

And I'm confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it's helping communities all across the country.

I give Michael Scherer a hard time on a regular basis over at Swampland but I believe he had the question of the night. The question he asked about States Secrets is a major issue on progressive and liberal blogs and other media but you hardly ever hear the right talking about it so really this was just about the only question in the whole press conference which came from almost a purely left wing orientation. President Obama's answer probably didn't end the issue for civil libertarians but he at least made the case that he hasn't changed his mind about the need to reform the states secrets issue and that he is working to do that.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush's use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush's? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

Obama: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it's overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We're in for a week, and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

There -- I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.

And we're interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

My observations.

1. I think one of the major things that President Obama did was take the opportunity to swat down wingnut memes in the course of answering the questions. He addressed the "pro abortionist" meme, the "socialist" meme, the "he's doing too much" meme, and the "torture made us safe" meme. I think its important to push back on these false cannards just as he did during the campaign season so that reasonable people who watch FoxNews will hear him say out of his own mouth that the stuff they have heard and read in emails aren't true.



2. Its nothing new but just seeing President Obama answer each question thoughtfully and have a well informed answer to every question is just so impressive to me. It shows that he is on top of everything and that inspires confidence.



3. Even when he was clearly being baited by Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd and Ed Henry, President Obama stayed calm and didn't allow himself to show any emotion. Could you imagine John McCain trying to answer those questions?



4. I still can't believe Fox though it was a good idea not to carry the presser.



5. I expect that his approval numbers will get a bump for the next few weeks or so.

PWNED On National Tee Vee

Yesterday before President Obama's Press Conference I heard that Ed Henry likes to write his questions down in advance. After watching him get his ass handed to him I have to say he should have saved the ink.




Yes the rest of the press core laughed at you last night Ed Henry. No amount of spinning by your colleagues at CNN will change the fact that you got dismissed like the pretentious prick that you are in front of everybody. Deal with it.

For Those Living Under A Rock

That One's presser

Wow

I just watched a whole Presidential press conference and my head isn't hurting.

Great job Mr. President!

Bring On The Crazy!

I saw this shit live on Tee Vee and it was FUCKING AWESOME. I mean this dude is like a ringmaster in a 3 ring circus. He is enjoying this shit! Man, honestly I hope this dude never goes away. He makes Sarah Palin look self aware. Not only does he TOTALLY skip over talking about pay to play, this dude threw the Illinois State House of Representatives so far under the bus they are probably halfway to California. Not only that, he had human props witnesses to prove all of the "good things" he has done as Governer. Hell to hear him tell it, he saved some fine young black fellow's life. Damn those dastardly state representatives who wanted to condemn that brother to die. Damn them to hell I tell ya! Man talking about this press conference just won't do it any justice. Please pop some popcorn and join me in watching this unscripted comedy play out all over again.

Who Woulda Thunk It?

Just saw President Elect Barack Obama on the Tee Vee introducing members of his financial team in a press conference. But get this, when the Q & A session started he took several questions and all of them were on relevant topics and he answered ever one of them (even the tricky one about having Rick Warren at the inauguration) fully and thoughtfully. I guess the press can be trained if you show them what happens when you bring the WEAK SAUCE. Maybe this can start to become a trend.


Well I can dream can't I?