President Obama will be giving a prime-time press conference tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. This is an open thread to discuss.
Mainly, I am wondering if Chuck Todd will come up with an even worse question to ask this time. In case you have forgotten, first Todd blamed the economic crisis on consumer spending, and then he asked President Obama why the average American wasn't sacrificing anything during the worst economic downturn in several decades.
Will Todd be able to hate on the average American even more this time around? Will someone else be able to ask an even more assholish question? Tune in to find out.
Afterward: The novelty of these events is starting to wear off a little bit. Perhaps it is entirely my impression, but this press conference lacked the pop of the previous two. This might be a good thing, as it means that "President Obama" is now normal.
President Obama's style remains slow and lucid. He is clearly thinking through all of his answers, rather than just flying off the cuff or relying on talking points. He isn't as good as President Clinton is now, but he is better than President Clinton was back when he started. The only question where Obama really rambled was on Specter and bipartisanship. That is probably a lesson in why we should avoid talking about vague abstractions that have little to no bearing on the real problems we face. It all comes out like BS.
The worst question award goes to Jeff Zeleny, who really stepped in it with his "surprised," "enchanted" and "humbled" question. Then again, people will remember Zeleny's question, which can't be said about most press conference questions. The best question was about when we should expect to see results from the policies that are being put in place.
The President's response on swine flu was strong for its specificity--the reminder to wash hands in particular. The framing on torture was disappointing, because the issue is not whether torture makes us safer, or whether it can acquire information better than other techniques, but whether it is right or wrong. That is an area where non-ideological pragmatism is not useful. The issue is whether it is right or wrong.
The most striking aspect just how earnest President Obama was when expressing his desire to not run banks and car companies. There was an honest, personal antipathy to that idea. He really isn't interested in doing that. some might read this as an ideological opposition to nationalization, but it could also be read as the feelings of an individual who turned down Wall Street to engage in public service. He just doesn't want to run companies. And hey, even as someone who supports nationalization, on a personal level I don't blame him.
|
STATE BLOGS
