President Barack Obama fist-bumps custodian Lawrence Lipscomb in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building following the opening session of the White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth. December 3, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).
If you haven't seen this footage yet, you really should. The House Republicans had a retreat in Maryland this past Friday, and invited Obama. He accepted, and his staff suggested that his brief speech and longer Q&A be aired and taped. The Republicans agreed.
Basically, Obama has the usual false talking points thrown at him, and he bats them down, one by one. There are maybe two Republican ideas with merit, but as Obama points out, they're good only with caveats and as part of a larger framework that's been ignored by the GOP. It's unfortunate but unsurprising that the GOP now regrets that they allowed the session to air. America would be much better off with more sessions like this. If the Republicans (and to a lesser degree the Democrats) actually offered good, reality-based policies that would benefit the country as a whole, that would be absolutely fantastic. Sessions like this can only help that.
If you can only see some of it, Talking Points Memo has many clips up, including Obama objecting to health care being portrayed as a Bolshevik plot:
You can see most of Obama's exchange with Jeb Henserling here (it's one of the best bits, and it's the last question he takes). Steve Benen has a good post on the cash-and-trash strategy by Republicans Obama refers to (although not in those words) - Republicans are happy to take credit back home for the stimulus money they voted against in D.C.
The whole thing is definitely worth the time to watch or at least listen to, though. Here's the C-Span page for the event, and Steve Benen has the MSNBC footage of the Q&A posted. The Washington Post has a transcript. Here's the YouTube version posted by the White House:
Meanwhile, if you missed the State of the Union, you can view it here. It was better than I expected, but I'm very concerned about the spending freeze talk. Eliminating waste is great, but boxing one's self in isn't, and exempting military spending ignores the biggest problem. See Krugman here and here, as well as Spencer Ackerman. The public seemed to like it in at least one poll, though. Some of the other proposals, including a reduction in the costs of student loans (more generous for those going into public service), and a targeted tax cut for small businesses, could be great. We'll see how it all plays out.
Questiongirl posted the video of the speech here, and you can read the transcript here.
I appreciate that Obama actually speaks to the public as adults, and am sympathetic to the ridiculous amount of challenges before him, many with powerful, entrenched interests against him, and an conscienceless, obstructionist minority party. (Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I want him to succeed, and plenty of conservatives do, too.) In the speech, Obama offered some on-target critiques to puncture some of the astounding idiocy of our national discourse, particularly the current fear-mongering over terrorists killing everyone in their beds after escaping from prison.
However, the speech had plenty of troubling sections, too. Dan Froomkin has a great overview (emphasis mine):
But in some parts of his speech, Obama appeared to be defending actions and even taking positions that didn't live up to his own professed standards.
When it came to what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo, he declared that he would work to create a system that would enable the indefinite detention without trial for a limited number of people whom the government is unable to prosecute for past crimes, but whom are nevertheless considered to be threats to the country. Even though he spoke of establishing lawful standards and periodic reviews, that's a dangerously extreme policy proposal. He once again expressed his intention to use a reformed military commission process for some detainees -- but gave no reason to think it won't run into many of the same legal challenges that Bush's process did. He spoke of sending many detainees to face trial in federal courts -- but then promised that no one would be released who endangers our national security. The whole point of a fair judicial system is that the executive can't guarantee the results.
Obama spoke passionately about his commitment to transparency, but offered up the same lousy and unpersuasive excuses he did last week for his decision to fight the court-ordered release of more photos of prison abuse. In particular, the weight he put on his responsibility not to release information that would inflame our enemies was deeply disturbing.
He offered no additional clarity regarding his position on the state secrets doctrine, where his lofty promises still stand in dramatic conflict with what his administration is actually doing.
And in continuing to oppose the creation of an independent commission that would fully investigate the abuses of the Bush administration, he marginalized those of us who want to find out what happened as polarizers, much like those who continue to doggedly defend Bush policies. He said the recent debate has obscured the truth -- when all we want is to let it free.
See also Glenn Greenwald, DDay and Digby. As they say, look at Obama's actions. And what disappoints me about Obama is the many places he's running things too closely to the horribly ineffective Bush playbook – as captured in this Tom Toles cartoon. It'd be one thing if Obama were letting Attorney General Eric Holder do his job and enforce the law when it came to Bush era abuses, but DDay's piece passes on a troubling report:
On at least one issue, though, Obama seems to have made up his mind. Isikoff reports that Obama announced his opposition to torture prosecutions--an unsurprising admission, perhaps, but one that must have disappointed many in attendance. Previously he had said that the question of investigation and prosecuting Bush administration officials was one for Holder to answer. But with Holder sitting right beside him, there's no doubt he's feeling pressure to, as they say, look forward, not backward.
If this is true, it's not good. I'm glad Obama's meeting with civil rights groups, but we've seen that the GOP will not stop gross abuses of power voluntarily. I understand Obama not publicly leading the charge on an investigation, and he was correct that Congress and the courts can proceed. But the Justice Department can and should, and is in fact legally obligated to do so. The Departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, and Health and Human Services all have steep tasks ahead of them, but that's why there's more than one department in the government and more than one cabinet official. While I continue to hope the best for Obama and his administration, there is absolutely no scenario where public pressure to do the right thing won't make things better. We need a full investigation into human rights abuses (and on Wall Street, among other places). These aren't distractions, they're the tasks at hand, and essential to address for a successful long game.
Jezebel has a great clip of Maya Angelou talking about Barack Obama's win (via TRex). Jezebel's clip skips the intro (and is lower-res) than the full segment below, but still has the good stuff. I'll just add that was a real treat to hear Maya Angelou speak at my college years back, and I always love to hear her talk. But let's turn it over to the poet herself:
…and there's much more already out there, with still more on the way. We need a New New Deal. You may have your own ideas. Share your best stuff. We've got some great policies, but we're not afraid to keep exploring to find something better. For instance, there may be creative alternatives to solve the energy crisis:
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Keep those ideas comin'! Democracy is a rock 'n' roll anthem, but it won't play itself.
I really enjoyed this segment. Continuing the comparisons, we'll see how much like Prince Hal Barack Obama proves to be, and McCain also reminds me of Coriolanus, although without the military talent and personal honor.
