my sentiments too at the end of the news conference.  

first time since the election i've seen anyone from the "other side" offering even grudging acknowledgement of any facet of obama's abilities.  admittedly i haven't been around much so it's possible there've been others.

either way--like even if you're not the first or alone in your your appraisal--i'd be very much surprised to discover any sort of positive comparison between reagan and obama no matter how tentative.

i'm truly impressed.

first time since 'the wire' ended i've felt as if we were both watching the same show on the same channel at the same time.

That was pretty much my response as well.  I watched most of it, and I was less than impressed.

First of all I blame the reporters, why the hell did someone ask about Obama's opinion of A-Rod's confession related to the use of "banned substances"?  Why not ask an important question like a couple of the other reporters asked related to how Obama could guarantee that this stimulus bill will "save" our economy like "only the government" can do.

And dispite his harping on this I still fail to understand how spending money just to spend money is going to stimulate the economy.  I'm not arguing whether the spending may or may not be needed but why is all needed in one bill that is rushed through congress?  You want to modernize schools, fine but you don't just toss billions of dollars at schools and expect them to do anything meaningful with it, you spend a little each year targeting certain areas to renovate buildings as the money becomes available.  Same goes for modernizing the federal buildings.  None of that stuff is real stimulus, it is just spending.  I don't care whether there are any earmarks or not, the bill is full of pork.

Personally, I'm buyin' snake oil futures.

10 words:

james dale guckert jeff bulldog gannon talon press credentials ooops

not at all. chronologically obama follows in the footsteps of an administration infamous for choreographing whatever press conferences it couldn't squirm outta over the past 8 years.  not only has ari fliescher copped to it, he's explained how and why it was done (be on message or off the grid).

on second consideration, choreography is really only apt if we expand its definition to include stupid pet tricks (thus inadvertantly providing eric boehlert with a great title for his book, 'lapdogs:how the press rolled over for bush") and then widen the concept of stupid pet tricks broadly enough to encompass what boehlert reported happening in march 2003 when bush held his last press conference before ordering the invasion of iraq:

"The press corps's barely-there performance that night, as reporters quietly melted into the scenery, coming at such a crucial moment in time remains an industry-wide embarrassment. Laying out the reasons for war, Bush that night mentioned al-Qaida and the terrorist attacks of September 11 thirteen times in less than an hour, yet not a single journalist challenged the presumed connection Bush was making between al-Qaida and Iraq, despite the fact that intelligence sources had publicly questioned any such association. And during the Q&A session, nobody bothered to ask Bush about the elusive Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind whom Bush had vowed to capture. Follow-up questions were nonexistent, which only encouraged Bush to give answers to questions he was not asked.

At one point while making his way through the press questioners, Bush awkwardly referred to a list of reporters whom he was instructed to call on. "This is scripted," he joked. The press laughed. But Bush meant it was scripted, literally. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer later admitted he compiled Bush's cheat sheet, which made sure he did not call on reporters from some prominent outlets like Time, Newsweek, USA Today, or the Washington Post. Yet even after Bush announced the event was "scripted," reporters, either embarrassed for Bush or embarrassed for themselves, continued to play the part of eager participants at a spontaneous news conference, shooting their hands up in the air in hopes of getting Bush's attention. For TV viewers it certainly looked like an actual press event...

The entire press conference performance was a farce -- the staging, the seating, the questions, the order, and the answers. Nothing about it was real or truly informative. It was, nonetheless, unintentionally revealing. Not revealing about the war, Bush's rationale, or about the bloody, sustained conflict that was about to be unleashed inside Iraq. Reporters helped shed virtually no light on those key issues. Instead, the calculated kabuki press conference, stage-managed by the White House employing the nation's most elite reporters as high-profile extras, did reveal what viewers needed to know about the mind-set of the MSM on the eve of war."

 

much as i'd like to move on to good ol male prostitute and whitehouse ordained press conference shill jeff gannon do i really gotta go there?

kingbee, your argument is exactly what I can't understand about Pres. O's following.  They all HATED Bush and everything he did, said or touched.  Obama is supposed to be the anti-Bush but when he does or says the same thing Bush did, you get the "Well he was already doing the same thing for 8yrs" excuse.  You have your claims of "Change" but it's the same old politics wrapped in a different colored package.

This President can't even build a cabinet!  If a Republican nominated 2 tax evaders, can anyone honestly say it would be given the kind of pass that Pres. O has been given so far?  And good on you Sen. Gregg!

I HOPE things CHANGE but I don't BELIEVE it.