100th Night: Live Blogging the Presidential Press Conference

Maybe Fournier told her to ask the question since many of the conservative types are advocating that borders be closed.

Al, hope you stay in America awhile, at least until this thing gets under control.

That is the most explicit statement he's made on the admin.'s position, which is to modify the policy toward more court review. And it's the first time I've heard articulated the reason it hasn't happened so far ... his folks need to get up to speed and are dealing with some cases already in medias res -- and that DOJ is actively formulating a new policy that will be implemented.

Obama alluded to this limitation on the president's presumed omnicient power when he talked about all the various power centers he must confront, and that challenge even the president.

It was good to hear that expressed and I expect it's sincere. But I still want to see it happen -- with respect to this new state secrets policy under development [since even though I may trust Obama, I don't trust all these other power centers he concedes pose a challenge].

the questions and the answers. Thanks.

I don't know how many people's jaws still drop when the President of the United States opens his mouth and words of a way above average speaker and thinker come out, but I have to say, mine still does. I'm embarrassed to my indie music, counter culture loving, Canadian core and blush daily at admiring the President  so much.  America may very well embarrass us Canadians into electing our very own Ivy League fixture.

Anyway...having watched movies like Wag the Dog, I've been thinking recently that if Obama has "handlers", they have got to be hating their job.  Such movies have been predicated on the idea, made very believable by Ronald Reagan and GWB, that US Presidents are well intentioned, sometimes even likeable, but ultimately thought deprived pawns of more ambitious, intelligent and nefarious back room dealers. I am overjoyed to see (or at least think I'm seeing) a world leader at least appear to be turning that idea on its head.

Because as any good right winger will tell you, the swine flu in only transmitted via them "illegal aliens".

God, our media. I'm not saying the flu is not serious and the possibility of a pandemic isn't serious, but you would think from watching the cable news that the swine flu was some flesh eating alien virus with a 90% mortality rate.

That 4-part question was stupid and your answer was priceless!

The question sounded like something I would have asked my elementary students to answer!

@Joel: you are not the only one constantly amazed...my hubby said the same thing.

No, we don't think he's the Messiah or that he's perfect. But he is amazing...

and yes, Al, it is up to us to keep the real issues at the forefront and to keep our Prez accountable--to US!

Putting some ducats in the cup...

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Unbelievable.  That clown has been getting a pass for years, and is often promoted as some sort of legitimate journalist on "Meet the Russert/Gregory," "Face the Schieffer," and countless cable shows.

I hope people will spread the word on this racist so that when he starts appearing a bunch now, which is what they'll do for damage control after this, more of the general viewership will know that York is purely a propagandist and nothing else.

Hell, the fake news National Journal will probably promote him for this (or perhaps the NY Times will offer him a job now), but Byron York should not be appearing on any respectable news outlet.

Oh, and Obama kicks much ass!

Agreed.  Olbermann and Maddow were in their worst whiny modes tonight, for exactly the reasons you describe.  I'm about to write them and tell them that (not that one email matters to them, but I figure we're not the only ones with that reaction).  Maddow seems to be slipping back into her "what about the Bradley effect" craziness again...

Good questions.  He wouldn't answer them.  We cannot underestimate the fact that he is the President - not a candidate, not the Attorney General.  His words carry a lot of meaning.  He cannot make the type of conclusions your questions warrant - it's not his place as President.  When, and if, the Dept of Justice comes out with their position, he will make his statement.

Any other comments than what he said tonight - that he views waterboarding as torture and that America won't torture under his watch - will be used to politicize the issue and could determimentally prejudge any legal action that may occur.  Furthermore, if he were to answer those questions and elaborate on his views and opinions of the issue and how the law should interpret what Bush and his administration did, the deeper he gets himself into the weeds of something that really has very little to do with him, in a substantive way.  Most importantly, to me, it is bad for the law - for the concept of innocent until proven guilty - if the President of the United States is partaking in proceedings within the court of public opinion.

This is a big deal.  This is a difficult issue.  The American people are not sold on the idea that torture is bad under all circumstances.  I have close friends and family who sympathize with the idea that post 9/11 times were very dangerous and the pressure was on, and they can see how they ended up torturing.  These are very just and fair people having these sypmathies. 

In the end, I'm not sure what people want him to say.  They are obviously not prepared to launch the sensitive and expansive process of prosecution.  Not too many people can blame them.  So this pressure on him is starting to come across as unreasonable and vindictive.

The good news: Obama didn't call on Fox News. 

The bad news: But he did call on the WSJ, another Murdoch mouthpiece.

The ugly news: Obama still calls on the three interchangeable white frat brothers from CBS, ABC, and CNN.  Jake, Chip and Ed.  I forget which one is which.  How did their respective daddies buy them the White House gig?  And Chuck Todd seems to be trying desperately to impress the brothers during rush week.  Please, guys, let me in to your club.  I can be inane, really I can!  Watch me!

Next time, Obama, please call only on real newspaper reporters and bloggers.  You've given the frat brothers more attention than they deserve.  They got nothing.

Al,

Your response at 8:39 and 8:48 had me laughing.  I am constantly amazed at how it seems most reporters actually think they are asking intriguing questions or repeat questions others had asked. I agree with you, Joel and Pamela. I wonder if the reporter spent most of the day to put together his 4 part question.

Thank god you're watching and taking notes, Al, because I can't listen to the goddamn pressers without getting enraged that most of those people have gigs covering DC and I damn well don't. I learned pretty early on that I didn't have the stomach to be an inside the beltway reporter, but when I hear these pressers and think about how opportunities have been squandered, I get annoyed as hell.

"Al, I give the President a strong A-minus - with a point deducted for talking to dictators and not closing the border."

Did anyone see the lame, rather pathetic, instapoll-based 100 days "grading" special on CNN? It was quite literally a parody of political reporting. Stuff like "I'm giving Secretary Clinton an A-plus because we all thought she'd undercut the President at every turn."

Just an embarassment - but I'd already blocked MSNBC using parental controls (no parent should let a child have brain-numbing access to Olbermann or Matthews) and was too lazy to figure out how to change it.

Honestly, what passes for national political coverage in this country...

Obama was sharp though: "waterboarding is torture" from the WH itself was a historic pronounciation, and totally unyielding. And I loved the framing on immigration.

@BR:

Thanks.  And yes, I've sent multiple emails to both of them underlining this thought.  No response or change yet...the more, the better.  Maybe you'll crack the armor.

@IVA

My thinking is this: He's not going to answer any of these questions - and for the exact reasons you point out.  However, asking the same question over and over again, then being so frustrated that it's the same dodge over and over again...it's an excersise in lunacy.

The point of my questions here is to come at this subject with another angle.  To explore a new corner of it.  Would Pres. Obama say that US law trumps International law?  Of course he could never SAY that, but that's one of the implications we're facing.  The way he would handle that questions would give an indication on his thoughts that we aren't currently privvy to - and you at least have a chance he'd answer the question.  In the former, you'd have new angle...and in the latter you'd have actual news.  Win-Win by my book.

"In the end, I'm not sure what people want him to say."

That, I fully agree with.  There's only 3 outcomes to the questions he's been asked so far:

1.  "I'm asking the DOJ to investigate and prosecute these war criminals." - which kills his entire legislative agdena.

2.  "I've stopped the torture, and I"m not going to do anything about the previous administration's torture program.  I've asked the DOJ to drop the issue, and I won't recognize the validity of any international court on this issue.  They sucessfully CYA-d, and they will get away with torture." - which, for the sake of our country and future generations, is most assuredly NOT what we want.

3.  Dodge, dodge, dodge. - which leaves the situation murky and unsolved.

The problem is, the more the press makes this a "What are YOU going to do about this Pres. Obama", the more they lead him into choice #2 - since he really can't do anything about it for the reasons you've pointed out.  The more they put the onus on him, as the President, to make this call about what to do, the more it's ALREADY steeped in politics and thus dead in the water.

My goal, with those questions (and others like it) are to ask questions that looks at it from a different angle, which allows the President the freedom to answer.  Right now, the questions being asked aren't allowing him any other answer - he has to dodge, and he has to dodge in the same way.  I actually believe his frustration in these questions is that he's unable to answer them in any other way without totally screwing over either his adgenda or his ideals on this issue.

The fact that he HASN'T just said "we're not going to do anything, drop it." is telling.  It's the politically expedient thing to do to make sure he can keep moving his priorities forward...but he hasn't done it yet.  Granted, every time he gets asked the same, politically charged, question...he moves a little closer to doing it.  But for right now, it feels to me, he want this off his plate and on to the DOJ's.  He wants to show that if (when?) the DOJ actually does move forward - his fingerprints are absolutely nowhere to be found.  Because if they are, then his job to fix the economy, get healthcare, build a green energy future, and the rest go up in smoke.

My questions aren't meant specifically to get an answer on torture.  They are meant to allow the President leeway to give a different answer than the one he's been forced to give 100 times.  And hopefully, though there are no promises, hopefully it will lead to a better understanding of where he is on this issue.

I could be wrong about his underlying hope to get justice but keep his inherently political hands off it, and we may not like the answers.  But we need to open the door so he can walk through it.  We will never learn anything new if we keep asking the same thing over and over again.

Hope all is well with you Al. Haven't checked in here for quite sometime, but I thought of you immediately when I started hearing the news about the Swine Flu.

I very much agree with your assessment, particularly the 3 options you presenting that the President has.  When I have time to really ponder this issue further, I may have more to add to that.

In terms of his thinking and giving us some insight, I think this is the "problem" with Obama.  He's so intelligent, so insightful, and so interesting, that we all want to know what he's thinking about a given issue and what he's going to do.  And usually, we want to know before he's ready to share his feelings.  And because we all want to know what he's thinking, his views carry a lot of weight.  He knows that, so he is forced to take his time in formulating his positions because once he's made his positions known, it's hard for him to walk it back or clean up any mess that may occur.

I think this issue needs to be debated amongst ourselves.  I have a legal background and the discussion in progressive corners about this is kind of simplistic and legally tone deaf.  I think we need to better educate ourselves about issues regarding evidence, defenses, constitutional law, etc. 

Also, from Obama's answers last night, he is extremely comfortable with his decision to ban all of the torture techniques the Bush people cooked up, and he's extremely sure that all of those techniques, not just waterboarding, are legally questionable, if not just plain illegal.  But I feel like he's not sure HOW to resolve this problem without harming his agenda and without harming a lot of our institutions in the process.  And until he gets the vision for how this can be handled, he will and I would hope he continues, to be evasive.  The worse thing he could do is rush this.  Many strong cases on the face get thrown out of Court because the investigators and prosecutors did not take their time to dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".  The evidence is not going anywhere since much of it is in the control of the Obama Administration.  The major players aren't either.  So, there really isn't too much of a rush with this issue.

I'm not sure how this will turn out.  I'm somewhat cynical and I think there will be a sacrificial lamb that isn't Cheney or Bush, that will take the fall.  Perhaps it'll be Rumsfeld or Condi...we'll see.  I really don't think it'll be someone as high up as them even.  My bottom line is that I do not want the promise of the Obama agenda for the greater good to go down in flames over this.  Every day, equities have to be weighed, things aren't just black or white, good or bad.  There will be accountability, but I'm not convinced it'll come in the form of full blown prosecutions and jail for all those with blood on their hands.  I think this may be one of those situations where their punishments will be their legacies attached to a shamed and disgraceful period in American history.

After he took office as president, Abraham Lincoln was hounded by abolitionists to abolish slavery -- on the grounds of its moral perfidy -- for almost two years, until he actually signed the Emancipation Proclamation.  Why did he wait?  Because he wanted to find a way to associate abolition with a far more popular cause than the morality of slavery (at a time when most Americans did not think it to be immoral) -- and that cause was preserving the Union.  When he emancipated the slaves, his stated reason was to deny their economic value to the rebellious, war-making South, so as to hasten Union victory.  Lincoln was also advised by his secretary of state to wait to emancipate until he could do it from a position of greater political strength.  The Union military success at Antietam gave him that occasion.

Obama knows that if he orders Eric Holder to initiate investigations of senior Bush officials that could lead to criminal prosecutions, the Washington media circus will become obsessed with this to the exclusion of covering more action that he needs to organize on other issues which will have a far greater long-term impact on his overall success and on the nation, chiefly the economy and health care.  No politically astute president will jeopardize the core of what he promised to do once in office, by making a decision on another issue that won't even assure the result that the aggrieved constituency is demanding.  Obama cannot personally assure that torture prosecutions will be successful. 

Holder can set in motion these investigations on his own.  That is very likely to happen, perhaps soon, but with little fanfare.  Obama will continue to avoid talking about the issue.  Eventually, these investigations will educate the public about how and why Bush senior officials violated various laws and the Constitution.  People will be disbarred and some may go to jail.  Justice will be done.  Obama may not get much credit for such a calmer outcome -- and people who are tremendously concerned about the issue won't get as much psychic income from it -- but he will have avoided handing the media the opportunity of a huge political distraction, which would be sure to re-polarize the country.

Rome was not built in a day.  Nor is a more progressive future for this country.

Your comments were well worth it. I don't think he should ever all on Henry, Todd or Trapper. There are plenty of other reporters that should get the chance to ask him dumb questions.

on the tortur(ous) issue.  I am so happy to see the comments here about Obermann and Maddow whining about it - I thought it was only me who was tired of the "why doesn't Obama blah blah blah" on torture.  Do they not GET that he isn't the Justice Department?!  I actually turned off Maddow the other night before she had Jonathan Turley on to rehash it all over.  Travis, your well articulated thoughts on the matter make a whole lot of sense as well as the terrific comments of IVA and Tribunis Plebis. 

The only part of the press conference comments that I'm not in tune with others here is the 4 part question.  I don't have a journalistic background at all but I thought those questions were meaningful in that it gave us a sense of what his thoughts are behind his actions.  Obama's comments about the political game still being played were brilliant - stating very clearly that his bi-partisan attempts were entirely genuine and that he was surprised that politics were not set aside when the economy was dropping off the cliff just a few months ago.  His thoughts about the military was especially touching (once he got around having to describe it as enchanting).  In looking at his background, it seems he might have had little interaction with any military in his adult life and so his heartfelt comments did acknowledge his appreciation for their selfless, hard work and dedication to job which is so much what he is all about.   So on the journalistic side it might have been a bit Barbara Waltersish but I don't think it can be ignored that those are the questions that people remember because of the very personal answers they often elicit.

I'm glad you are stating the importance of the economic nightmare, Al. I wish you would cover that area more in your other posts. I never watch TV {perhaps once a year--saw the Inaugural Address} and a presser would enrage me. I worked in the media thirty four years ago and learned to despise it then. I'm mystified by your current interest in the media circus, your cheerleading for the Obama Administration and several other activities you are about these days. But, overall, you have been remarkably astute in the two years I have followed your commentaries and I fully expect that very shortly you will be pointing out that all is not so very rosy in the Hopeful Homeland. Perhaps you will address these three areas first: The Economy, The Economy, The Economy. Explain to me and the other readers just why public funds should support the failed and criminal banking and insurance schemes and how is it that Larry Summers is in charge of anything? I could go on for another 100,000 words, but I am sure you do understand me. I very much like the greater part of the President's sterling efforts, but I am 100% unimpressed by his economic policies and that is the opinion of a person that is neither a Democrat, Republican, Neocon or Progressive. I don't have an agenda that I follow or believe in, but I do have a pocket that the Administration would be emptying if they could reach it. Fortunately, and by design, I live in the only place in the world where US citizens cannot be taxed by Washington. But for those residing stateside, how is it possible that there is not vast alarm and outrage about the activities at the Fed and Treasury? You as an investigative journalist may have some answers, Al, and if so, my thanks in advance. As always, happiness to you and take care of your health.

I patiently await the Byron York article that points out that since mostly white people supported John McCain, his support appeared higher than it actually was.

Great post.  GREAT post.  I am in the same place, as are many of my friends - most of whom were major Obama supporters (and donors).

I think Obama is making very bad choices regarding the economy and listening to absolutely the wrong people.  Very disappointing.  While I was encouraged to read in the NYT interview of Obama last week that "I read Stiglitz all the time," it doesn't seem to be getting through.  Even Bob Herbert (NYT) who is often rather sentimental and not a columnist I always pay much attention to, had a great piece in the NYT last week about what is needed and what isn't being done.

As far as the MSM - we certainly know we can't expect great reporting from them, on the economy or any other issues.  This is not news. 

@ Mary.

I actually think Obama is well aware of the criticisms to his plans, as well as the alternatives.  He doesn't strike me that he's in that much of a vacuum or bubble.  I really think Obama's getting other sides.  He's just rejected them, at this point. 

I really think we forget that he gets NO money unless Congress gives it to him.  Congress is not going to give the trillions of dollars needed to nationalize the banks.  He barely got the stimulus $$. So with that, I think the Geithner plan is the only one that seems sensible, absent doing absolutely nothing and letting us continue to contract.

In the New York Times Magazine this week, Obama flat out says that in the future, Wall Street is not going to be as big and as important of an industry as it was.  He's well aware of the dangerous amount of power they have over our financial system, since right now, if they want, they can take us down.  I believe that since he cannot get the trillions needed for nationalization, and since it is unclear whether the federal government has the legal and personnel means to nationalize these large institutions in an orderly fashion, what he's doing is working with them to fix them and clean them up, and then he will regulate them to the point where their power is diminished substantially.  It's not as revolutionary as nationalization, but it seems, to me, like an orderly way to reshape the banking and financial system in a way where they don't regain this much power and control over our finances.

On a side note, Al, if you do end up discussing Obama's economic plans, what I hope you do is not only critique them, but offer a feasible alternative.  For example, if you're in the nationalization camp, I'd like to see how it is done, what tools are used, whether Congress is needed, whether the votes are there in Congress, how much money it will take, which banks are nationalized, what happens to people and entities with hundreds of thousands, and millions invested in these banks, etc.

@Catherine Cain

Thank you so much for the kind words.  I still consider myself fairly new in this sort of "commentary" realm.  Encouragement like that certainly makes a guy feel better about something he's toying with expanding into.  Thanks again.

I completely agree with you about any segment with Jonathan Turley.  He's a smart guy, and I'm sure given his background he knows this particular issue way more than I do.  But he's a damn broken record at this point.  He's said the same collection of words about two dozen times by now on Countdown and Maddow.  Hey Jon, if you feel so strongly about it - get your ass on CNN, on FOX, and try making this case to more than the same million viewers over and over again.  Expand.  Or, get yourself in court - or in the White House (he has a pretty high rep.) and make your case there.

I don't need to watch any segment with Jonathan Turley, I can just watch an old DVR of his last one.  And the one before that.  And the...

@IVA

I admit that I have no legal background.  My thought process is based off the very clear torture conventions, which we broke.  All the US Legal CYA doesn't amount to crap when put up against such clear cut definations of torture.  That said - good god do I not have a freakin' clue how the legal side of this story would go down.  That fact is surely why I've learned to keep myself in check and no longer just screaming "PROSECTUTE!" over and over again.  I'm really glad people like you, with some legal insight, are also in these conversations.  We need you to keep us from going all Republican...screaming for the sake of screaming.

I wonder if I would feel ok if Condi or Donald got nailed, but Bush and Cheney got off the hook?  That's a tough senario, emotionally.  My hope is that if someone ends up in jail - that those above get the stigma of "they were guilty, but the evidence wasn't there legally".  Think OJ Simpson.  Condi goes to white collar prison known forever as a convicted torture enabler, and the history books show that the only reason Cheney and Bush didn't was because they played the system...I might (big might) be able to live with that.  Sigh...maybe.

@Tribunus Plebis

The Emancipation Proclamation, I think, is a great situation in which to put this in context with.  I think your assesment is a pretty good one.

Keep in mind that Holder is probably ALREADY looking into this.  A full fledged investigation is different from collecting data to "decide if we want to conduct an investigation".  I have no doubt there is a lot of behind the scenes work going on at the moment.  Does that mean it's inevidable - no.  But I think we both know Lincoln sure wasn't just ignoring things until the Preclamation was issued.  There's a lot of setup to be done.

In fact, here's a theory:  am I the only one that noticed the shear VOLUME of data we've gotten?  Not only that...but we've gotten it sort of slowly, drip drip drip.  If all this information was dropped as one big load - there'd be NO WAY Obama would be able to avoid being pressed into an immedate investigation - thus imploding his agenda.  But if slowly but surely more and more info gets out there - a case can be built.  Should there come a time in a year or two when the winds allow for Obama to really sink his teeth into this...all this stuff will already be out there.  He won't have to make a case - it's already been made.

Could Pres. Obama actually be doing this?  I don't know.  I have a feeling that this sort of long-term planning might be there.  I don't feel strongly enough about that theory to say that's what's happening...but at the same time Pres. Obama has proven himself deft beyond belief so far, so let's just say I wouldn't be shocked if that turned out to be the case.

Well said IVA. PBO is well aware of the Stiglitz types. I don't doubt the intelligence of Krugman or Stiglitz, but they are waging a philosophical battle the PBO doesn't subscribe to (at least not in public).

Latin America nationalized their banks in the early 80s and it was an utter disaster- my understanding is that the banks were still technically solvent (you can't seize a bank if it's still solvent).

People also seem to be neglecting that the U.S Gov doesn't have the legal authority to seize a bank (Geithner and Bair has asked Congress for this authority).

I'm guessing 'resolution authority' (aka receivership) with be granted to the the Obama Admin. later this year as part of a broader financial regulation package.

I myself think the PPIP is likely to do some good.

While I have no idea exactly what Krugman was referring to in his piece, I would like to suggest that the economy is hardly healthy, no matter what he said.

In Seattle (where I live), which has not yet been hard hit, our (one remaining) newspaper, The Seattle Times, had a piece recently talking about the people who were willing to forfeit their earnest money - up to $100K - on condominiums just now nearing completion in downtown Seattle - because the prices are now so out of whack.

In the apartments where I live (I sold my house in late 2004, realizing we were in a big FAT bubble), the vacant units are over 25% - in a 50-unit place.  True, the greedy landlord had overpriced the rents.  Nevertheless, that's the reality and I'm certain he is hurting now.  As are commercial rentals everywhere.

The credit card rates are off the charts.  Many people can't just pay off those cards but others (like me) are and swearing not to use them.  Screw Citibank and others, I am actively looking for a good credit union for my money.  I also wrote to my senators about the issue (see Huffington Post for some good articles) - have you?  Might not be a terrible idea.

We are bleeding jobs every damned month, big-time.  With no end in sight.

As James Galbraith recently wrote, people are NOT going to start buying again.  They are nervous, their homes have lost tremendous equity, and they are saving like mad.  So much for the Obama team's predictions.

Obama's "advisors" - particularly Summers - believe this is all a "confidence" game.  Yeah, like in con game.  Without jobs - and because of NAFTA etc. - which suddenly is just perfectly fine with our president - the middle class is in a world of hurt, and that's not going to change any time soon.  And I frankly don't care, Al, if our world of hurt is far less than Mexico's world of hurt.  Without a thriving middle class, the US of A will be like Mexico  in short order.

I worked for and donated big to Obama during the primaries.  What I did NOT do is swear my undying allegiance and loyalty to him once he got elected.  I, like Al, trust NO politicians, particularly now when the Democratic Party is only marginally better than the Republican Party. 

If you all want to feel loyal to Obama, fine.  Just please don't give up critical thinking.  Not now.  It's a fool's errand.  And Obama NEEDS people nipping at his heels.

Thanks Mary, I agree, and I very much hope you keep up the protest.

Thanks.  I generally feel like a voice in the wilderness on this blog.  (It was not always so.)

Mary - The good news for you is that so many other blogs are likewise obsessed with Summers and Geithner as if the guy who gives them the orders is somehow their dupe. You've got it backwards. This blog is the voice in a wilderness of blogger cacaphony by so many who feel exactly as you do. I think they're wrong, and it doesn't matter anyway, because this business of "nipping at the heels" of the administration is done so ineptly that they have zero effect other than to fulfill their self-image as somehow important.

When one repeats the dominant spin - so identical whether it comes from Newt Gingrich or David Sirota - one really shouldn't claim to be so lonely in it.