An arrogant Obama loses his cool and stares down reporter who called him out...

Isn't that kind of the point? That he already broke the ethics rule that he set up?

And why should he be more open? I think that's terribly imprudent.

 

you've got to be kidding, how is it not open, just because he didn't answer the question? we know who the guy is, we know what he did, we know obama's policy, obama wasn't prepared to deal with the question because he wasn't expecting questions.

but its nice to know the wingnuts are holding their president up to high standards now after 8 years of disaster, good for you guys.

 

well if he continues to avoid the question then it's an issue but the question was clearly asked at an inappropriate time. if the situation was reversed with a repub pres. you would have titled it "disloyal liberal press harasses repub pres. at meet and greet".

 

I can just picture some overzealous reporter trying to make a name for himself. reminds me of the old SNL skit when Bill Clinton is giving a press conference and his press secretary says before the conference no question about the ongoing investigation with lewinsky and that's all the questions are about.

 

Just in case you all didn't see this from our resident national detriment...
Recently, in response to "what do you want from an Obama presidency," Rush Limbaugh had these inspiring words:

"So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it."

He got one word write in the this whole bit: FAIL. His logic, his patriotism, his career moving forward = FAIL. Good news for the USA.

 

I'm critiquing the setting of standards against lobbyists, and then hiring some lobbyists. For the impromptu news conference, your post in particular said, " At least he's talking to reporters" which in that instant he really wasn't doing.

Maybe I'm not making my argument clear enough. The President should be discreet. I think this whole transparency thing is a stunt. I hope that he's not transparent. I hope it is all is fluff. But we'll see.

 

amazing that after eight years of bush, six with a republican congress, they can blame america's problems on "liberalism" unfreakinbelievable, they live in their own world

 

This **** is really ruining the D&D.

 

from cnn January 8th

Two things from the bolded, he has addressed this situation, and the policy isn't "no lobbyists"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama, who campaigned on lessening lobbyist influence in government, has chosen a defense expert who is currently a vice president and lobbyist for one of the country's biggest defense contractors to be his deputy secretary of defense.


President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a defense expert and lobbyist for deputy secretary of defense.

Obama's transition office announced that William Lynn, an undersecretary of defense in President Bill Clinton's second term, has been nominated as Defense Secretary Robert Gates' deputy.

Lynn is currently a senior vice president at Raytheon, which has billions of dollars in Defense Department contracts and is the maker of the Army's Patriot Missile system and the Tomahawk missile used by the Navy. The company is also developing a global positioning satellite communication system with the Air Force.

As deputy secretary, Lynn would be involved in the process of budgeting and acquisitions, in addition to running the day-to-day operations of the Defense Department.

Obama's transition office acknowledged that appointing a lobbyist did not, on the face of it, seem in line with the president-elect's ethics stance but that Lynn's qualifications and the recommendations that came from both Republicans and Democrats made him the top candidate.

"Because Mr. Lynn came so highly recommended from experts across the political spectrum, the president-elect felt it was critical that he fill this position," said Obama transition spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Vietor said Lynn and the transition team would create guidelines that would fit the ethics standards of the new administration.

"We are aware that Mr. Lynn lobbied for Raytheon and are working with Mr. Lynn to craft a role for him that is consistent with the president-elect's high standards while balancing the need to fill this critical national security position," Vietor said.

During his campaign, Obama took a hard stance against the influence of lobbyists in Washington. His campaign Web site included a promise that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years."

Creating that distance could be difficult given that Gates, who was appointed by President Bush, is making cutting the Pentagon budget a priority and Lynn would be involved at some level.

The announcement noted that Lynn's experience both in the public and private sector means he can make "the tough choices necessary to ensure that American tax dollars are spent wisely."

Lynn's supporters, including Sen. Jack Reed, R-Rhode Island, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts -- whom Lynn worked for on Capital Hill -- said in statements they support Lynn's candidacy.

"He's a proven leader in both the public and private sectors of the national security community and his previous service in the Department uniquely qualify him to help the Department run more efficiently and effectively," said Kennedy.

The transition office also announced other Defense Department nominations, including former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Robert Hale for undersecretary of defense and Michele Flournoy, who was part of Obama's Pentagon transition team, for the undersecretary devoted to policy. Gates interviewed Lynn and the other appointments, according to the Pentagon spokesman.

"He interviewed each of them, came away impressed with their personal character and professional credentials, and recommended the president-elect hire them," said spokesman Geoff Morrell.

 

Except we see reporters shouting questions to the President every chance they get even when the President or the press secretary states they will take no questions. Consider when the President is walking to Marine one or walking away down the corridor of the East Room after giving a statement.

Obviously there are off record times but from the article it wasn't clear that this was meant to be that sort of time. It sounds like the President caught the press corp by surprise and a reporter being a reporter asked a question. Every President has to go through this sort of game with the press and pretty much every modern President has complained about it. This is no different from a reporter from asking GW Bush a question about Katrina while he is waiting to get into his Limosine.

 

Being open leads to accountable govt. That's something that we've been missing the last 8 years.

It helps protect us, the citizens from our government.

I think the question about the appointment is a valid question, and I'm interested in hearing Obama's thoughts on the matter. But until he responds, I'm not going to make a final judgment.

 

I agree. I don't think the reporter did anything wrong but I'm not going to jump to conclusions about this apointment without knowing more.

[edit] I see Pgabriel posted an article about it.[/edit]

 

With enough transparency we might have been able to find out about torture sooner, and close Gitmo before now. We would have known that Bush and Cheney were talking out their asses regarding Iraq and might have been able to avoid the whole mess.

We would have known that the person Bush put in charge of civil rights was a racist sooner, and could have had someone actually qualified for the job.

We could have known that the NSA was illegally listening in on people's phone calls and breaking the law sooner, and stopped it.

Transparency is the greatest protection citizens have from a corrupt govt.

 

did you see sean hannity revealing a part of a photo every day for obama's first 100 days to "expose the real barack obama" ala major league? unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

I don't know how much you know about the press, but there are on the record meetings and off the record press meetings - this was an impromptu courtesy meet and greet (in his capacity as host to the press corps for the next 4+ years) and clearly the latter and not the former- Accordingly it's considered bad form to shout questions out - I guarantee you most of the journalists in that room would agree with that. There's an obvious distincition between this and publicly scheduled event with reporters in their official capacity even shouting out questions.

Anyway - since it is your claim that this is dispositive of the "lack of a new era" can you tell me of a similar occasion to Bush with this? More likely - Bush didn't even bother to do a courtesy meet and greet in the first place - anyway google is out there if you want to try to prove this claim.

 

Obama's policy regarding lobbyists is more nuanced than recognized here. It is not simply that anyone who has done lobbying cannot work for the Admin. That said, it sounds like this appointment is still out of bounds given Obama's specific conditions. It is an inconsistency or an exception. It reminds me of the appointment of the tax evasionist, since Obama knew there as well that he had this tax problem and appointed him anyway. I don't really think making one or two exceptions to his lobbyist rule is problematic, but I recognize Obama is being inconsistent.

As for the article, the thread title and even the article headline is wholly inconsistent with the meat of the article. Obama tells him once he won't answer questions now, but the journalist persists, so Obama must persist in telling him it wasn't the time for questions. Ordinarily, a president would probably not acknowledge the question in the first place, but it was probably unavoidable here because Obama had gone to say hello to them; he just had a journalist who didn't have the class to appreciate that. With behavior like that, it won't be long before the journalists are cut off from the Admin again.

 

If Obama is so great people wouldn't need to bring up Bush all the time. If Bush is the worst president in history in some of your minds, being 43rd best is acceptable based on the fact that at least he isn't 44th?

 

Do you read the posts in this forum? When the argument from his detractors, as ridiculous as it may be, is that he does NOT represent change from Bush, which is pretty obviously wrong after 2+ days, then what do you expect?

 

point missed as usual


we know bush was bad, and you guys held him to low standards, that's the point. its not to compare bush and obama, its to compare your expectations, I'm glad you expect more than just a guy you'd like to have a beer with after the last disaster.