i <3 Obama! He can do no wrong

Who's this Obama you speak of?

obama is a joke.

he tilts me more every day.

lollers! dont worry guys... i will do your research for you.
Thursday Feb. 12, 2009 07:18 EST
<H2>WSJ Editorial Page: Can a newspaper be more misleading than this?</H2>
Wall St. Journal Editorial Page, today:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?". . . .

The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out. . . .

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors.

</BLOCKQUOTE>
Ari Fleischer, Tuesday night, The Bill O'Reilly Show:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
O'REILLY: Look, [Obama] had those guys written down, who he was going to call on. Now, in other press conferences, they'd just look around and go: "this one, that one, this one" - correct?

FLEISCHER: Well, George Bush never did that. . . . Writing it down gives the President more control.

O’REILLY: OK, so George Bush came in with a list of guys he was going to call on?

FLEISCHER: Yes, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot coms and other oddballs who come in there. They’re screened.

O’REILLY: Like the Huffington Post. Now it gets called on.

FLEISCHER: And I used to seat them all in one section. I would call it "Siberia." And I told the President, "Don’t call on Siberia."
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Michael Crowley, The New York Observer:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact, the [] only moment of candor [of the March 6, 2003 Press Conference] may have come when Mr. Bush admitted during the conference that he was calling on reporters according to his pre-arranged list of names, which his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, later copped to preparing.

"This is scripted," Mr. Bush joked.

Strangely, many reporters laughed at this remarkable joke, which had the additional benefit of being true.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Deliberate deceit or complete editorial recklessness from The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page? And which is worse? Are there any limits at all to the factually false claims newspapers can spew without correction? We'll see. And of all the canards filling the overflowing canon of self-pitying right-wing grievances, the complaint that the Beltway media was unfairly and excessively critical of the Bush presidency has to be the single most laughable (as even Bush's own Press Secretary will tell you).

Perhaps most pitifully of all, the WSJ Editors end with a condemnation not only of Obama for pre-selecting the reporters, but also of other newspapers for failing to make an issue of it:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
This -- from the same newspaper Editors who are either dishonestly concealing or never bothered to notice that the former President, the one who served their ideological agenda, did exactly the same thing.

its phish again... wsj's bias pointed out, i do agree that the president should be indiscriminate on those selected for questioning. fuck the pre-selects.

carl rove?

yea, others have done it. but the point is that obama's "open" government that he ran his campaign on is a joke

^ ty sir

gotta love the Bush haters justifying actions by their Messiah (Obama) by saying that its ok because Bush did it

Im probably the biggest anti-Obama guy on here, but I'll say that this is a non-story. Doesn't bother me that Obama does it, and it didnt bother me that Bush did it.

Just hilarious that Obama got himself elected by saying he wasnt Bush more eloquently than his competition in the primaries and now his supporters' #1 defense for any questionable action he takes is to say that Bush did the same thing.

So which one is it?

Bush is bad and we have to CHANGE.

Or

Its OK that I did it because Bush did.

Hope it doesnt take 4 years for him to sort this out.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

gotta love the Bush haters justifying actions by their Messiah (Obama) by saying that its ok because Bush did it

i do not see one post in this thread justifying what obama has done. please point me in the right direction.

not reading any answers....

this has not been OBVIOUS since the first press conference when he got elected? he looks down at a name on a page and he does this all the time, this weeks was someone from the AP. (i remember this because i was thinking about this at the time it happened. "oh thats who he preselected this week. how nice.") then he looks up and tries to find them, big deal though.

obviously selected ap due to not being fox or not being msnbc and sounds nice and middle of the road and won't tick people off as bias.

no detail is left to chance. real life is scuuuuuuuuury. standard operating procedure. once he has some favorite suckups he will go to them more regularly.


(how did they get such a pretty mountain anyhow?*Mount Moran ftw.)

its my new signature, i only ONE TIME will say what it is and everyone else will have to go "HUH?" most of the liberals probably dont read these threads so we are good to go!

there are plenty of variations on teh google that would look like a different thing yet still be the same. i approve of this message.

im getting a lot of use out of this pic ...

much better.

huhn??