CJR staffers will be live-blogging tonight’s presidential press conference (airing at 8pm on all major networks, and streaming live on major news sites). Feel free to participate in the comments section.
And if you feel yourself inspired/ired/otherwise moved, tonight or whenever, click over to our News Meeting section and let us know what you think about the political dramedies that are presidential press conferences.
In the meantime, as a preview of what you’ll see at 8, here are some of the pre-released excerpts of Obama’s opening statement:
We will recover from this recession. But it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that when we all work together; when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other – that’s when we succeed. That’s when we prosper. And that’s what is needed right now. So let us look toward the future with a renewed sense of common purpose, a renewed determination, and most importantly, a renewed confidence that a better day will come.
Hello. I've finally gotten over my shock/horror/profound sadness at Dancing with the Stars being pre-empted for tonight's press conference, and am now happy to be with you.
#1 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:03 PM
Quick scan of bells-n-whistles at 3 major cable channels reveals that Fox is the only network that has a news crawl crawling during the broadcast. (All three feature PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE graphics, a notation that the event is LIVE, and their network logos.)
#2 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:07 PM
Buona sera, Megan. At least we can take comfort in the dynamic graphics on cable. MSNBC has an undulating flag under its logo. CNN has a weirdly spinning presidential seal. Fox wins with a non-moving, classy serif font. Classy.
#3 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:10 PM
First question goes, per tradition, to the AP (in this case, Jennifer Loven); she asks whether the administration's AIG policy represents "a new sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially."
#4 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:10 PM
Bon soir. I'd like to note, as the non-TV-owner on staff, that I'm watching this on the NYT web site, surrounded by headlines. What headlines, you ask? "Citing A.I.G., Geithner Seeks Wider Power for Takeovers." "Will the Geithner Plan Work?" "To Cut Costs, States Relax Prison Policies." "Labor Enforcement Agency Is Failing Workers, Report Says." No spinning presidential seal, but good reminders/visual stimuli, aside from Jake Tapper's Serious Face.
#5 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:19 PM
Hello, Miss Katia! Are you as excited as I am that Chuckie T got called on?! (The folks over at VivaChuckTodd.com, at any rate, must be thrilled.)
Todd declares that the Obama administration's financial policies have "cushioned the blow" for people who've been culpable in the financial mess. Given this new era of responsibility that you've been talking about, Todd asks Obama, why haven't you asked the public to sacrifice?
Obama, unsurprisingly, rejects the premise. It's not that they haven't been asked to sacrifice, he says; it's that they're doing the sacrificing in their individual lives (as opposed to their civic lives, apparently). So, he says, we have to invest in things that will foster "the American people's capacity for ingenuity and innovation," and allow them to continue "doing what they've always done: working hard, looking after their families, making sure that, despite the economic hard times, that they're still contributing to their community"--and..."paying attention to the debates in Washington." Hence his explainer-in-chief role.
#6 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:19 PM
Media nerds might be satisfied with CNN's use of the lower third, which lists the source of the question, as well a summary of the question, and what topic its on. And, it perpetually reminds us that we're in the White House East Room.
#7 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:20 PM
Guten abend, Jane! So: I can't decide whether Jake Tapper needs a Paxil or a hug. (Or: both?) He always looks and sounds, just, so profoundly sad. The Eeyore of the press corps. (Maybe he's, um, pining for Monica or something?)
#8 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:25 PM
Megan! I am very excited about Chuckie T. Also I'm excited that my udon noodle soup has arrived. And, I am really un-excited that people--Chip Reid this time--continue using this idea of passing on debt to "our children."
It's this weird alarmist theme, when in reality, taxing forward has been the underlying fiscal philosophy for decades. It reminds me of that character on the Simpsons who always implores people to "please think of the children."
#9 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:26 PM
Obama calls on Lourdes Meluza, the reporter from Univision (Napolitano announced a plan to combat increasingly out-of-control drug-smuggling operations between Mexico and the US this morning). As Meluza stands up, Obama says--I'm 90 percent sure--"si."
#10 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:31 PM
Speaking of military procurements, this is an excellent article from the Washington Post about excessive, unwanted defense spending: "Independent experts say the obstacles to radical change in defense procurement are all familiar: Close ties between contractors and the military services help ensure that waste and inefficiency are unpunished. Lawmakers seeking home-state jobs and a steady flow of campaign contributions have every incentive to keep funding programs that Pentagon officials say they do not need, particularly in an economic downturn.
"A lot of these weapon systems that are big-ticket items now have no purpose," said William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank."
#11 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:35 PM
Nice. Mexico question. Do you consider the situation now a national security threat? Do you see it requiring troops? Obama says, we're sending millions of dollars in equipment and more personnel to the border, and he says we're "coordinating very effectively" with the Mexican government. He lauds Calderon. The steps that we've taken are designed so that the border communities are kept safe, he says.
The question, from a non-major news outlet, comes relatively early on in the hour, especially considering the other issues on the table (economy, budget). Could it be because the administration announced today "that it would increase the number of federal agents and the amount of surveillance equipment along the southern border" (per NYT)? Color me skeptical.
#12 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:36 PM
Robin Givhanian interlude: Obama is wearing a red tie (he wears one at pretty much every major address and conference, right? Post-partisan neckwear?). Ed Henry is wearing a red-and-white-striped tie that I'm pretty sure was designed by a group of Icelandic gnomes.
#13 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:39 PM
The names of some of the journos--the white, male journos--that have been called on so far:
Chuck, Chip, Jake, Ed, and....Major.
Awesome. They'll also be hanging out together next weekend at the ZBT reunion in Cabo. Dude, it's gonna be EPIC.
#14 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:45 PM
This is a tough times press conference. I'm getting worried that there won't be a puppy question, or a college basketball question.
#15 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:45 PM
I didn't see who asked about Cuomo's outrage about the AIG bonuses and Obama's delay in broadcasting his own outrage, but Obama responded by grinning and saying, "I like to know what I'm talking about." Who's the arbiter of what Obamahumor is acceptable, and what Obamahumor isn't? (Alternate question: can someone write something about how Obama flashing his pearly whites (OMG) is indicative of his inability to communicate?)
#16 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:46 PM
Megan, at least there was Lourdes representing. Should I be worried that I don't know what ZBT refers to?
#17 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:49 PM
Megan, having dated a ZBT brother, I know for a fact that the UVa chapter prefers Myrtle Beach Bike Week.
#18 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:50 PM
Obama deals well, I think, with Ann Compton (ABC Radio)'s question about the significance/effect of race so far in his administration: "The last sixty-four days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we're going to fix the economy," he says. At the Inauguration, there was "justifiable pride on the part of the country" in overcoming "the searing legacies of racial discrimination in this country," he notes--"but that lasted about a day."
To which: faint chuckles from the East Room crowd.
"Right now," Obama continues, "the American people are judging me in exactly the way that I should be judged": on how well he's handling the economy, on whether he's keeping them safe, etc. They're judging him (to paraphrase the president a bit) based not on who he is, but on the job he's doing. And that (to extrapolate, now), at least in some sense, is progress.
#19 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:51 PM
Jane! ZBT is a historically Jewish fraternity, with Zionist roots and origins at Columbia, if wikipedia is to be believed.
#20 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:54 PM
I believe that even though he is spending trillions of dollars he is making the right move, i understand that we "don’t have" this money but when we do get rolling again we will have this money, I am with Obama on this 100 percent!
#21 Posted by Collin, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:55 PM
I believe that even though he is spending trillions of dollars he is making the right move, i understand that we "don’t have" this money but when we do get rolling again we will have this money, I am with Obama on this 100 percent!
#22 Posted by Collin, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:56 PM
Katia! Whole new respect, lady. (Jane: here's more on ZBT.)
#23 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:56 PM
On stem cells, Obama says he's happy to avoid controversy, if it's not where the science leads. Washington Times reporter follows up, asking whether science can provide the sum total rationale for a policy road map. Obama responds by saying that no, morality necessarily plays a part. Reiterates what he's said before in interviews, that by the time an issue reaches his desk, it's a tough question, a hard question. It's rhetoric that he's obviously decided works.
#24 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:57 PM
I believe that even though he is spending trillions of dollars he is making the right move, i understand that we "don’t have" this money but when we do get rolling again we will have this money, I am with Obama on this 100 percent!
#25 Posted by Collin C., CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:57 PM
"This is a big ocean liner; it's not a speed boat," Obama says. "It doesn't turn around immediately."
#26 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:58 PM
I believe that even though he is spending trillions of dollars he is making the right move, i understand that we "don’t have" this money but when we do get rolling again we will have this money, I am with Obama on this 100 percent!
#27 Posted by Collin C., CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 08:58 PM
A baker's dozen of questions by my count, with the economy playing front and center. Will the markets be reassured?
#28 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:02 PM
Watching CNN reax.
Wolf Blitzer thinks Obama looked "tired."
Campbell Brown thinks that, "in many ways, [the conference] was an opportunity to turn the page" away from anger; this was Obama trying to get beyond the rage about AIG, etc.
John King points out that "Iraq," "Afghanistan," "Osama bin Laden," etc. never came up tonight. "You want to talk about a sea change from George W. Bush to Barack Obama..." he says, in a slightly marveling tone.
#29 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:03 PM
More of Obama talking in circles. Can any tell me what he was talking about? I don't think he knows.
#30 Posted by Richard, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:04 PM
Oh, Jane eats a slice of humble pie. Thank you for the informational pamphlets, ladies; I'm definitely going to consider rushing.
I have to say, hearing the clinking of glasses (or am I imagining that?) in the post-press-conference haze, and seeing some decidedly more formal getups, tonight's dramedy seems more like a fake reunion (fancy seeing you here, Chuck!) than an hour that gets in line with Bobby Gibbs' daily press briefings.
#31 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:05 PM
The O'Reilly take: Obama "Long-winded answers and evaded direct answers?" and "He bloviated all over the place" and "Do you think he wanted to be boring?"
#32 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:05 PM
I hope they will, Katia. Not sure IF they will--but I hope they will. I also found it interesting/telling how often and how artfully Obama directed his answers back to education. He's right to do it--education is key to a lot of this--but at times it struck even this ed reform advocate as non-sequitorial (which, if that's not a word, I think should be)...
#33 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:09 PM
Still watching: Jake Tapper from ABC gets a "good reporter" rating from O'Reilly, and the following summary of Tapper's question, "Will you veto the bill if it doesn't have your little cap and thing on the energy deal or a middle class tax rebate?"
#34 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:12 PM
On CNN, William Bennett seems a bit surprised (possibly even: faintly schadenfreudic? (sorry, another only-should-exist word)) that the president got such tough treatment from the press. Obama "went through a murderer's row," Bennett says, a bit wonderingly. Bennett's proof of that? "You saw a flash of anger by the president at Ed Henry."
#35 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:13 PM
Looking at tonight's press performance, the folks over at The Economist's Democracy in America blog are calling the foreign press "the easy-on-the-ears relief pitchers of White House press conferences." True, maybe, but is it that contingent's fault that budgetary/economy issues are such multiply-armed monsters that talk of the Mexican drug war seems like an underhanded slow ball?
#36 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:15 PM
Do you guys find this as questionable and kind-of-sad as I do? From the NYT's live-blog of the conference:
"Helene Cooper | 8:28 p.m. Finally! A break from the wonkish budget talk."
#37 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:16 PM
Oof. Right as Helene Cooper was asking that, Josh Marshall was asking at TPM's live blog: "Just occurred to me: I think we're a half hour into this thing and we haven't had one real question on the bank bail-out plan the administration just announced? We're done with that?"
#38 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:26 PM
But I have to agree with Helene on this: "I’m still slackjawed over the shocking lack of national security issues raised. This is a new world we’re living in, after seven years of Al Qaeda, Iraq and Afghanistan. Hard to imaging a Bush press conference focusing so singularly on the economy, but then, these are clearly different times."
Clearly they are. But, still, there's a line between intense focus and myopic focus when it comes to the economy; one hopes that the Obama administration--and the press members covering it--are erring on the side of the former. We forget our context at our own peril.
Also, some unsolicited advice for politicians, pundits, and anyone else who speaks on TV or radio: refrain, under all circumstances, from using the phrase "knotty problem." Because when you say it (as Obama did tonight) your audience (as I did tonight) will hear "naughty problem." They just will. And nobody with pretensions to authority, no matter the context or tone or what have you, should be using the word "naughty."
ALSO...David Axelrod and Ed Henry seem to share the same couturier. Nearly identical, candy-cane-striped ties.
And, with that...I'm off. 'Night, everyone!
#39 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:27 PM
Well, Bill O'Reilly's moved on with an ambush on a Florida judge who "has a history of being soft on sex offenders." Caught the guy buying snacks at a gas station. I'm moving on, too. Good night!
#40 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:33 PM
Cathy Horynian interlude. Would just like to note that the photos of the press conference that are up on the NYT Web site include one pretty classic what-do-you-do-with-your-hands-while-watching-your-boss-talk one of Rahm Emanuel (hands on hips), Valerie Jarrett (arms crossed over chest), Favs (hands in pants pockets), and Axelrod (arms hanging by sides) looking on. Axelrod, by the by, has on a candy-cane-esque red-and-white tie; he must have coordinated with Ed Henry.
#41 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:36 PM
And with visions of candy canes dancing in my head, I bid y'all a good night.
#42 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 09:40 PM
Was Helen Thomas asleep for this one? I was waiting for one of her prescient queries. Peace and Love.pt
#43 Posted by paul, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 11:06 PM