Normally the “honeymoon” stage of a Presidency is the first 100 days. But as Obama continues to prematurely don the mantle of the Presidency, the honeymoon period has kicked in fast and furious by the media and the public.
Sailing to a victory on wings of promise of “change”, it’s realistic to state that no one can evaluate the fulfillment of this promise by his Presidency since the man is not yet President. But what can be scrutinized is the “change” we see… not in an adminstration weighted heavily with “wall to wall [Clinton] retread white guys” (HT to N. O’Brain for the fab phrasing) …but in the public’s perceptions and tolerance merely by the prospect of a new administration. Evidently, they are more willing to give a pass to the incoming POTUS that they have not given to the outgoing POTUS.
Some of this newly demonstrated “tolerance” by the public is long overdue, and welcome. As Obama slowly, and somewhat shrouded in media stealth, moves foreign policy closer to a Bush III term, the outcry from the public is more subdued. Certainly if it were Bush, and not Obama as the orchestrator of the planned 20K troop surge in Afghanistan, the media and Congress would be a’buzz with the negatives.
Instead the criticisms and crys of negativity are emanating only from our British ally, Gordon Brown. And here Biden thought Obama was going to be “tested” and defied by our enemies… not our allies.
I’m not sure when the media will finally stop declaring Iraq a “failure”, but I suspect even that too may come to pass after the magic inaugural moment. And that will be a welcomed “change” of public perception and tolerance.
But in the final days of Bush’s 2nd term, Condi is still battling media like the AP roundtable on their tired Iraq perceptions.
In a roundtable with the Associated Press yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked about “this, you know, sort of signature moment of a guy throwing a shoe and saying, you know, this is your goodbye present.” The AP reporter wanted to know “why should Americans think that we have done a lasting and valuable thing in Iraq? And I know you’re going to say the removal of a tyrant, but beyond – beyond the change of” – at which point Rice interrupted him with this answer:
SECRETARY RICE: The removal of a tyrant is a pretty big thing. Look, so a reporter threw a shoe, which, by the way, is a kind of sign of the freedom that people feel in Iraq, but somehow what was missed was the extraordinary moment for the President of the United States to go to Iraq, of all places, and to be received by a democratically elected Prime Minister, a democratically elected Presidency Council, with full honors at the Presidential Palace with the Iraqi band playing the national anthem of the United States of America. I think that is far more salient than one guy who decided to throw a shoe.
And I have to say that the weight of the story is about the President being able, after all of the difficulties and the ups and downs, to go to Iraq and to receive that kind of honor with an Iraqi Government that is preparing for provincial elections at the end of January, that an Iraq that is no longer ruled by a bloody tyrant who put 300,000 people in mass graves, who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against his neighbors, who literally tried to absorb the state of Kuwait – for me, one of the extraordinary moments was to drive into Kuwait the last time and see the Iraqi flag flying voluntarily in Kuwait, an Iraq that will no longer be a threat to its neighbors, that has its best relations with Turkey ever, that is being integrated into the Arab community of states again, but this time as a Shia-majority, democratic government that is an avowed friend of the United States. That’s what that story is about. And frankly, I think it’s peculiar that any of you decided to focus on the shoe.
You go, girl… I’m really going to miss this woman. But rest easy, Condi… when Obama gets the Bush reception on future visits to that nation… and the Iraq band plays the US national anthem… the “failure” word will not enter the coverage, and the pomp and circumstance surrounding “that one” will be celebrated as is due. Of course, lost in the short term minds of the American nation will be the reality that the moment would not have been possible but for a rebellious CIC and extraordinary military (including other nations) swimming against the Democratic tide of defeat.
So yes… some of the Obama “change” will be welcomed by me.
However there are some other new “tolerant” attitudes that I find disturbing… and after reading around today, it’s obvious I’m not alone in this worry. And that is the American public and a fawning media have also adopted a high tolerance to secrecy, and instead rewarding the dodge of issues and transparency with trust. This, IMHO, sets a dangerous precedent.
Matt Finkelstein at Newsbusters is noting “Now It’s Cool for Presidents To Dodge Questions”.
What a difference an administration makes. During the Bush years, if a spokesman or the president himself attempted to dodge a tough question, the media would go into their Sam Donaldson impressions and pundits would see a conspiracy of silence.
But now that it’s Obama, the dodging that was once denounced is suddenly celebrated. Thus, appearing on today’s Morning Joe, Larry O’Donnell declared “impressive” Pres.-elect Obama’s stiff-arming yesterday of a reporter who dared asked Blago-related questions.
~~~When O’Donnell appeared later in the show, he declared himself impressed by Obama’s artful dodging.
LARRY O’DONNELL: You know, the way Obama quashed it yesterday in the news conference was pretty impressive. And look, it’s a pretty difficult situation for a reporter. You’re sitting there, you’re going to get one shot at the President-elect. You can, as he put it, waste it on a question he’s not going to answer, or you can ask him something about education. I think [Obama] did a pretty effective job of giving him that option.
Also impressed with Obama’s “transparency” is WaPo’s Dana Milbank, who says:
Obama has proved himself to be far more willing to take questions than Bush, and if he makes good on his promise to release the full account of his aides’ Blagojevich ties — even on Christmas Eve — it will be a major improvement in transparency over the current administration.
Might I remind Mr. Milbank that that “full account” is internal, done by Obama attorneys, and hardly unbiased?
This artful dodger talent is not confined to Obama, but also shared by his Chief of Staff-“elect”, David Axelrod when he sniped at host, Mika Brzezinski later the same day.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Here with us now, incoming senior White House adviser. David Axelrod joins us. David, thank you so much. How are you?
DAVID AXELROD: Thanks for the uplifting set-up. [A wry reference to the glum economic news reported just before his appearance, but not in a way that cast aspersions on Obama or Axelrod or that could explain his ensuing ill-humor.]
BRZEZINSKI: Thanks for coming on. First a question from me: why don’t we know more at this point about Rahm Emanuel’s political relationship with, as well as his conversations with, the governor of Illinois?
DAVID AXELROD: First of all, I recognize that that’s a question from you: you don’t have to identify your question as coming from you, even though we’re on the phone.
You have to listen to the clip to hear the nastiness in Axelrod’s voice. Mika’s facial expression made clear she was shocked by Axelrod’s inexplicable rudeness, but she chose the high road and declined to respond. Axelrod went on to declare that O’Donnell “was right” in his positive assessment of Obama’s performance. Surprise!
While Obama and his administration appointees have neither been absolved, nor proven involved in the Blago Senate seat scandal, they have done little to promote confidence in their innocence. Indeed, keeping with the boilerplate Obama methodology of “distraction” in as to his relationship with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, IL Senate correspondence, his medical records, Rev. Wright, or the sundry lawsuits challenging his eligibility via birth records, the Obama transition team still clouds their status of involvement with confident statements of internal investigations, and a plethora of non-answers.
As Ruben Navarrette Jr. at the San Diego Union-Tribune says, if they aren’t involved with the Blago scandal, they should stop acting like they have something to hide.
The sloppy way the Obama transition team has handled things isn’t building credibility with anyone but a docile press corps. Columnists, news anchors and liberal pundits assure us that just because Blagojevich has been charged with intent to sell Obama’s Senate seat doesn’t mean that Obama or his advisers were in the market to buy. Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald also assures us that taped conversations involving Blagojevich sure make it seem as if the governor was “bleeped off” that Obama wasn’t offering anything more than appreciation if Blagojevich allowed the president-elect to essentially choose his replacement.
But wouldn’t it be nice if we could have fewer assurances and more facts? Is it too much to ask for the public, which pays the salaries of every actor in this drama, to be able to have a more detailed accounting of wiretapped conversations between John Harris, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, and Rahm Emanuel, who will soon be Obama’s chief of staff? All we’re being told is that Emanuel approached Harris with a list from Obama of “acceptable” replacements.
Personally, I find this a tad unseemly. The Senate seat doesn’t belong to Obama, who was barely in it long enough to warm it, but to the people of Illinois. Be that as it may, the list was presented. How did Harris respond? If the governor’s office asked for a quid pro quo, how did Emanuel answer to that? And if the Obama team felt Blagojevich was doing something improper, why didn’t they turn him in? Or did they?
Obama insists that his people have gotten to the bottom of all this with an internal review detailing the contacts between the transition staff and Blagojevich or any members of his office. But we won’t know until at least Dec. 22. Obama claims the U.S. attorney’s office had requested that the campaign hold off on releasing the information until then so as not to interfere with its investigation, and that the transition team has agreed.
Are the feds afraid that Blagojevich might catch wind that he is under scrutiny? That cat is just slightly out of the bag, isn’t it?
This new “change” of tolerance for secrecy and lack of transparency may just be riding the coattails of “hope” with the Obama election. But if it lasts beyond a reasonable “honeymoon” period, this willingness to accept “just words” as explanations and transparency is not a change for the better.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
The Blagojevich affair will come out in its own due time. Most of the hard evidence is supposed to be on tape (or other digital medium). If Emanuel has 21 recorded conversations with Blagojevich, the contents of those recordings are in the hands of the Federal Prosecutor. This is not the Nixon tapes, where Nixon didn’t want to turn them over. There has been not the slightest suggestion that Obama or Emanuel did anything improper, much less illegal, much less are participating in an obstruction of justice.
If Obama is innocent, as I’m sure he is, it would be inappropriate for him to say anything beyond what he’s already said. “I never talked to Blagojevich.” “I’m confident that my staff didn’t do anything wrong.” (or words to those effects). Question asked. Question answered. The details will come out in the prosecution of the person who does appear to have done something wrong, i.e. Blagojevich. Let Fitzgerald do his job (or appoint a Special Prosecutor, which I think would be a dandy idea).
After having read the “take” of this ongoing story from a score of conservative, GOP columnists and bloggers, it was refreshing to read an account from someone who has a perspective more in line with reality:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/ss136.htm
With respect to the “tired Iraq perceptions of the media,” the issue is whether the shoe tosses were representative of Iraqi public opinion or the actions of a disturbed and disaffected Iraqi reporter, as has been represented here. The evidence strongly suggests that the reporter was, in fact, representing the feelings of the Iraqi people.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3662
It’s remarkable how similar Iraqi public opinion is to American public opinion, on these matters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/12/15/ST2008121503327.html
Yeah, I know. It’s the fault of the mainstream media. Well, no, it’s not. Topic for a different post.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, how is it you read this entire post (assuming you did) and missed the point? Lordy you went off on tangents…
This is not about Obama’s guilt or innocence INRE Blago. It’s also not about whether he is correct to refrain from answering questions.
What the point … as I must reiterate… is that if this were the same events and Bush were the subject, the press *and* the public would be merciless in their pursuit, prejudgment, and accusations.
The “Obama change” is a new, relaxed attitude towards potential guilt and premature public prosecution. Indeed, it appears to swing the other way… which also isn’t healthy.
Whether this new ‘tude of goodwill and easy passes is good or not, time will only tell. Certainly innocent until proven guilty is an American theme that has been shamefully abandoned in the press and public’s eye’s for quite some time. However the willingness to accept a politician’s word so easily, without pressure, is not a habit that should persist.
Sorry I missed your point.
I disagree with your premise, but it’s an entirely theoretical construct (whether, if it were Bush, rather than Obama, the media would have gone after Bush more aggressively). I disagree, but neither of us can present evidence to support our points of view.
Perhaps you could give an example of a situation in which Bush was mistreated by the media which comes at all close to the details of the Blagojevich affair.
– Larry
Ah yes, Larry. I stand corrected. It was a veritable media lovefest with Bush thru Iraq, Katrina, FISA, the Patriot Act, the Surge, Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Halliburton, etc etc But of course he was never tried, convicted and executed in the court of media/public opinion…
sarcasm/off
You may have great faith in Obama, Larry. I’ve got no problems with that because, as I constantly say, time will reveal all.
However you lose all credibility when you refuse to accept the media has been abnormally aggressive with Bush, and the opposite with Obama. That is just plain living with blinders on.
As Juan Cole more honestly put it, Bush snuck quickly in and out under heavy protection-heavier than Saddam would have had when he ruled.
As far as Iraq’s new government being an avowed friend of America, ROFLMAO. It would be the first government in the world on very friendly terms with Iran, so to also call itself a friend of America. Frankly, any Iraqi government with such intentions would be overthrown immediately after the US troop departure.
“Ah yes, Larry. I stand corrected. It was a veritable media lovefest with Bush thru Iraq, Katrina, FISA, the Patriot Act, the Surge, Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Halliburton, etc etc But of course he was never tried, convicted and executed in the court of media/public opinion…”
What nonsense – the media was SO hard on Bush regarding Iraq, the congress gave Bush his war – TWICE – and the Patriot Act TWICE! That ol’ media – a real dragon when it gets mad!
And FISA? The media resistence was so strong, it also passed twice! The second time in a Democratic majority congress led by Reid and Pelosi – you can bet they felt the wrath of that terrible media!
Scooter Libby? Bush himself affirmed the conviction- or did the media make that up?
As to the Surge – left to his own devices, Bush would never have proposed a change in policy had not the media and the American people hectored him about his failures in Iraq. You seem to forget the 3-4 years of absolute chaos leading up to the Surge – which FINALLY and DESPITE this president, got things seemingly under control. Ever read Ralph Peters? Se what HE says about Bush’s bungling of this war…
As to Katrina – anyone see that picture of Bush playing the guitar in San Diego on the day the city flooded? After their convention, we know how Republicans feel about the cities – but you’re supposed to at least PRETEND to care when Americans suffer. You want to blame the media for Bush’s mishandling of a dire situation! Sure – see what it got you in2006 and 2008. You blame the media for his failures in iraq, his failure to catch bin laden, his failure to prepare at all in the days leading up to 9/11 – even as his own staff were forbidden on commerical aircraft! You blame everyone but the man in charge – always. No problem – you’re entitled – but don’t think the American people are as stupid as you’re partisan.
Oh MY! See how artfully our messiah doth evade the questions. Isn’t he wonderful in his damage control? Oh how very unworthy we MSM’ers are before his divine omnipotent presence.
Please, excuse me now while I run off to blow chunks.
“As far as Iraq’s new government being an avowed friend of America, ROFLMAO. It would be the first government in the world on very friendly terms with Iran, so to also call itself a friend of America. Frankly, any Iraqi government with such intentions would be overthrown immediately after the US troop departure.” – Ken Hoop.
Actually, Iran’s government is part of the cause for some of the violence in Iraq. They sent people to assist the militants in that country and most Iraqis as well as most government officials want them out of Iraq. This doesn’t sound so friendly. And before you rebuttle by retorting that the Iraqis want us out too, just letting you know that it is not in the same way.
The Iraqis want the Iranians assisting the militants gone by either catching or killing them and they want to keep as many from coming into Iraq in the future. Versus the way they want us to leave, which is passing them full responsibility when they’re ready, as said before by polling.
“Perhaps you could give an example of a situation in which Bush was mistreated by the media which comes at all close to the details of the Blagojevich affair.” – Larry Weisenthal
Perhaps you can tell all of us here how coverage of the Blagojevich scandal was in anyway mistreatment of President-elect Barack Obama?
Larry’s problem is that he knows now that he was wrong about voting for the ONE, but he will never admit it. This is why he praises him every day with so much intensity. It is the same thing for his fans. They do not like what they see but they cannot say it without looking like idiots. They are proud idiots. They prefer to lie to everyone instead of admitting their errors. It was easy for them to go on Bush because they didn’t vote for him. Just a game of ego going on here.
“As Juan Cole more honestly put it, Bush snuck quickly in and out under heavy protection-heavier than Saddam would have had when he ruled.” – Ken Hoop.
Actually, Saddam had protected himself using democide as means to make sure noone dissented or overthrew him. That’s about as heavy as protection for a leader gets and Bush had done nothing of the same magnitude.
Larry, I thought there might be hope for you, but you display a pattern of hopeless denial. Rather than face reality you sink further and further into the alternate world you have created for yourself.
The shoe throwing incident should be enough of an example. To preserve your fantasy, you pretend that isn’t proof while ignoring how they attacked him on the mission accomplished banner, claimed he lied about the reasons we invaded Iraq, and blamed him for Katrina.
Hard Right,
Larry is worst than the ignorant moonbats that comes here. Larry is much more dangerous because he is educated. And because of that he is exactly like the ONE, a sneaky manipulator. Like attracts like.
Ken Hoop,
It is funny but I must have a special talent. All I have to do is to read the pseudonym that the person chose to comment here and I know right away that he is a moonbat without even reading his comment. Amazing, and I am never wrong.
Craig, Larry is just deep in denial. He wants to believe something and he does to the exclusion of facts to the contrary.
I too have noticed the moonbats tend to out themselves with their names. They can’t help themselves. Their hate consumes and defines them along with their ignorance and arrogance.
Larry, maybe this will interest you:
GOOGLE: Obama’s Residence linked to PSL phone number
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/
“This is curious and bizarre. A reader, Jane, conducted some Google searches related to the Obamas’ Chicago home on Greenwood Avenue, and discovered the following, which I verified with my own searches, and documented with screenshots at approximately 2:30 PM ET on 12/17/08:
A Google search of the Obamas’ address, 5046 Greenwood Ave., Chicago, yields this:
The phone number listed for the address, if you can’t make it out, is 415-821-6171, a San Francisco area code. When I Google’d that phone number, this came up:The phone number associated with the Obama’s mansion is the number for the national Party of Socialism and Liberation. When I clicked on that link, I got this:
And a tab for local offices on the PSL site shows this:
Why on Earth is the phone number for the Party for Socialism and Liberation linked to the Obamas’ private residence in Chicago?”
I have a post stuck in spam.
Ken Hoop was on the Stratasphere for a long time using multiple names but with basically the same garbage. He used to e-mail AJ every day with his tripe and generally made a nuisance of himself on all threads. I guess he had decided to move on to this site now. Look out for a barrage of junk. I never decided if he got his jollies from arguing or if he really believed his posts. However, he was extremely offensive and insulting to everybody and tried to talk to us as if we were idiots and he was the knowledgeable one which was a total fallacy.
You want some more proofs, Larry? You have them right here:
Obama – Socialist Party Member UPDATE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UndhQWndyw8&feature=related
Barbara, I’ve noticed an uptick in moonbats. It seems the threads are hitting too close to home and they called in reinforcements.
@Rocky_B:
Good one, Rocky_B.
Thanks.
By george… Ms. Warp’ed is so easy to bypass (like a gnat) that I totally missed her extended version of “foot in mouth” with her comment #6. Wow… so many words, so few points. Where does one start when there are pressing tasks awaiting me, like filing a nail??
Ah yes… I remember the “love” in the press reports flowing then too. Media chomping at the bit to repeat the latest Congressional personal slams of Dubya… Altho the subject of Iraq is far more than more than the AUMF. You *do* know what the AUMF is, yes? Fear not.. there’s always google.
But then, despite the DNC and the media whining and moaning, they ended up having to do the right thing, eh? It’s tough to be wrong… but sometimes the political game says you do the right thing, but be sure to do it publicly kicking, screaming, biting, fighting so that your constituents think you’re doing something. This helps to fool the basket weavers during mid-term and POTUS elections.
See above paragraph. Evidently we can add political campaign strategy stupidity to your ever growing list of deficiencies. But take heart… perhaps Obama can declare stupidity a “mental disorder” and you’ll come into some cash … courtesy of the taxpayers and Obama’s socialist health care plan.
BTW, you do your fellow Ron Paul and/or other 3rd party supporters disservice with your posts. You are probably the least adept at facts and debates, and present the worst case profile for that faction of Americans that I’ve ever encountered. And I say this as a former Libertarian for years.
Again, you embarrass women voters. “we know how Republican feel….” All emotion, little knowledge, facts and logic. Sometimes I just have to agree with my friends that when women were allowed to vote, we certainly diluted the voting pool when we were forced to include women like you. And I tell you, as a woman, that’s really hard for me to admit.
You’re yet another bird brain who refuses to learn that FEMA works from “the bottom up”. There is a chain of command that has to be in place before the federal government responds. They do not usurp local authority and power.
This means a Mayor isn’t supposed to wait until last minute… or never… to declare to citizens of a city – who’s elevation is below sea level and sited between the Gulf of Mexico and a lake – to leave before a Cat IV hurricane strikes. A storm, I might add, where there was days of warning. It’s not like a tornado or earthquake, striking without warning.
Altho I must say, growing up in Florida/hurricane alley myself, I often wonder why anyone living in the hurricane belt has to be told the obvious.
Also, the feds or the POTUS, are not to blame because the Mayor didn’t provide all those buses as transport for those in need… Another local… and dangerously stupid decision.
Shall we consider the next step in the FEMA food chain? The idiot Governor? I won’t elaborate further. Do your homework before trotting in here with your elementary school level BS.
BTW, what do you know even about FEMA and their organization prior to Katrina? And do you recognize that some Mother Nature disasters will overwhelm even the most well organized federal emergency plan? (altho using federal and “well organized” in one sentence can be considered an oxymoron).
This is a heads up. If terrorists strike with bio or chem warfare, or a dirty nuke, there isn’t a city and emergency plan in the nation under your perfect choice of POTUS that will live up to your “take care of me” expectations. I suggest you put some effort into care of self and local community. Learn how to survive in emergencies, and stop expecting some guy in the WH, thousands of miles away, to either save your pompous butt… or to use him/her to blame when you’re not whisked away from danger immediately.
“Finally and despite this president”??
Were it not for Bush and the Pentagon, and the power of a CIC, this Surge never would have happened. Have *you* forgotten the opposition of the media, the Congress and the public??
And lest you cast aspersions on what I, or other authors here “forget” about the initial war strategy between Mar 2003 and summer 2006, let me remind *you* that you sauntered in here without a clue as to the prior posts and opinons by authors and most commenters here. I’m not going to fill you in on our history of discussing military strategy and errors… all of which you have aptly demonstrated you could not grasp with even the most elementary of presentations. So let’s put this simply so you can understand.
This President has not followed polls, public opinion, nor media and Congressional pressure on waging this war for the duration. If he had done so, we would have been out of Iraq in mid-2006.
But now… because the commanders on the ground and this Commander in Chief have succeeded in adjusting strategy against urban warfare – a type of war and enemy that we have never encountered in modern history – and turned it to success; *you* decide that it’s because he listened to public opinion??
Have you got a clue how absolutely demented you are? How far removed from reality… nay, even common sense… you live?
This Commander in Chief does not formulate his military strategy by advice from public polls, nor from spoiled, corrupt Congress members. And god help us if any future commander in chiefs *do*.
… and yes, I read Ralph Peters often. But I still form my own opinions… often contrary to his. So what?
Now, let’s go to your reason for your entire deluded diatribe…
You really have a reading comprehension problem, Ms. Warp’ed. You read all that into this post? I doth believe the others are correct.. you really must cut back on your meds. Or please, take them. You are seriously unbalanced.
For the record: I do hold the media responsible for nurturing majorly uninformed voters – like you – by their under researched misinformation. And I do hold them liable for helping form a majority public opinion that suits their particular agenda, thus misusing that power they possess.
I do not, however, blame them for the decisions a CIC makes. No Presidential powers are granted, or require approval, by the media. And if there was ever a President who did not use the media to influence his CIC decisions, it is George W. Bush.
Now, just what has any of this to do with the original post? Nada, nothing, nyet. And if you haven’t figured out the point of this post, maybe you’ll just STFU and stop embarrassing yourself.