Also before and during the fact. Huffington Post solicited questions from Iranians, and Obama apparently thought that was a good idea, and supported it. In what way was he not upfront about it?

The bottom line guys is that much of our mainstream press is a well oiled machine. The other side of the coin is Huffington Post and Rush, who can pretty much get away with saying anything they want and others pick it up as news. Which it is not.

Bullshit.

It is true that he did not address Iraq or Afghanisistan in his opening remarks.

But refused to take questions on the subject?..uhhh NO.....none were asked.

I have already answered that - repeatedly. In fact, that was covered in the original post. You disagree, fine.

Attempts were made toward the end of the conference. They were not answered nor acknowledged.

I dont see how it is any different than knowing in advance that the major networks will get a question....or at least one minority media and at least one foreign media.

Bullshit....unless it was after the alloted time when questions are always shouted out by those not called on

I love how you jsut make this shit up. Cite it with a vid. The full press conference is available.

You've done nothing of the sort. You're acting like some skullduggery has been uncovered, when he announced at the time exactly what he was doing.

I ask again, where was the deceit? What was implied, what was the reality, and what was the difference.

Just. Wow.

Much ado...

Well, the last time I asked, he said:And this time, he said:That's actually a common tactic from press conferences- fail to answer a question and then refer followups to your previous response.

Now that you mention it , he did fail to answer the question in question as well.

If you don't start impeachment proceedings right away, classic, I fear for our very lives. It's obvious he's more corrupt and evil than any leader the world has ever known. Now, we're not quite sure why, but we're sure of it. I demand action now. I won't stand for it.

I am, in all seriousness, not just doing this to needle you, classicman. I seriously cannot figure out what aspect of this you are concerned about. That's why I broke it down to the specific "What was implied, what was the reality, and what was the difference?" formulation. I thought that was a good way to convert the innuendo into specifics, but when I asked, you faux-surrendered, and then went back to innuendo.

No, I just realized that it was useless to discuss it with you, Rerun and S123. So in order to not get shitty about it, I let it go.

Basically, the questioner and the question were discussed beforehand, of that there is no doubt. That is very uncommon from our press conferences as it removes credibility to anyone actually paying attention both here and around the world.

As I said before. I do not believe having prepared, previously discussed or softball questions is right. That is all.

Right, you let it go.

And, you don't point out the other 5 or so people who were like what are you talking about?

A suggestion: if you don't want to hear what people say about your political hollering, don't post it. Yeah, you love a good argument, unless you're wrong or others say you are.

Leave me out, because I am out.

The questioner and the source of the question were discussed beforehand. That is all that there is no doubt about. Both sugarpop and yourself have noted that it did not appear that he was particularly prepared for the question itself.

I don't even know what y'all are talking about, but I'd like for classicman to explain it to me in unambiguous terms.

E.
A.
D.

How that flintlock?

Press Secretary's answer may be an attempt to evade question.

This thread has certainly degenerated overnight.

If I get this right classic, you simply feel that HP was given prefferential treatment because it suited Obamas own agenda right?

I think what others (including myself) are trying to point out is that this scenario is nothing new and in fact is pretty standard regardless of who's in office.

So the question which follows on for me is, do you think it's wrong that any Pres should be able to somewhat manage their press conferences or would you concede that it's an advantage to have a pres who doesn't look like a drongo during press conferences?

Ding ding ding.

False - This is actually extremely rare. The reaction of other members of the press was apparently one of shock. This exchange was that blatant.

Ding ding ding - we have a winner. A press conference is NOT an infomercial.

I am done with this. I am the only one who feels this way. I get your point and quite honestly, no longer care if anyone else gets mine. Now you all go and have a Blessed day, ya hear?

The "reaction of shock of other members of the press" certainly doesnt show up on the video of the press conference...only apparently "reported" as such on right wing blogs.

Oh...and the all too classic short and selective memory of wing nuts.

How soon they forget Jeff Gannon, the poser as a conservative reporter, given WH credentials, called on by Bush on numerous occasions for "soft questions" and thought by many long time WH reporters to be planted....until he was exposed as a male stripper/gay prostitute....at which time, no more access to WH briefings.
As opposed to a US-based reporter who had more contact with Iranian dissidents then probably any other reporter in the room.

nice tail post about your buddy there Rerun.

The truth will set you free!

If you dont choke on it first when it contradicts your bullshit.

The fact that the normal order was disrupted shows that there was a a normal order in the first place. If there's a normal order, then it is normal for the questioner to be predetermined.

So apparently the "Ding ding ding" is over the fact that he knew the source of the question would be an Iranian, which he anounced when he called on the reporter.

Maybe they were just jealous? :D


I just don't think it's all that uncommon classic. The fact that Obama is a smooth operator maybe makes some people nervous, but I really just don't think he did anything out of the ordinary. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that almost every leader of state knows exactly what questions are going to be asked of them and by whom at every press conference simply because they know what's on the agenda. Just because he pointed out to the HP journo that he knew what his question was going to be doesn't mean anything. In fact, he might even have been humouring him as a parent would an inquisitive child. It's Obama's job as president to know what's going on, and also to answer the questions that seem most important to his countrymen.

And thus, the end of a another non-story, despite the best classic efforts and WTFEs

don't forget to wipe your mouth Rerun. You still got a little shit on the left side from all that ass sucking.

Hit me with your best shot, dude....

Just occasionally, add a few facts for a change of pace :)

I wish you fellas would stop being rude to each other.

It's disappointing.

Just another day in the political Cellar.

It doesn't have to be like that. You could both (all) just be respectful of each others differing opinions surely? (I know it's not one sided of course. This would have to be a three pronged action. At least. lol)

Well Ali ... How many times have I said "I'm done" only for asshole (Rerun) to bring it up again? I've repeatedly said that I am done with this. Apparently I am the only one who feels this way. I get your (plural) point and quite honestly, no longer care if anyone else gets mine.

Sorry, Ali....I call it like I see it

Bullshit and baseless allegations (question was known to the WH in advance - bullshit, it is rare that questioners are pre-determined - bullshit, the press corp was visibly shocked - bullshit, the guy was escorted to his seat by WH aide- bullshit.....) by any name is not an opinion.

Classic, it wasn't just Redux who pressed the point mate. There were a number of us who were at a loss as to your point of view. I think we all just wanted to try and understand.

Maybe there's something else going on, but it just seemed like you decided to take your bat and ball and go home instead of trying to elucidate your point, or was it that you realised maybe there's really not that much to it after all? I'm not saying that's how you feel, but I still don't get what the issue is for you and if you don't want to bother with it anymore then that's fine, but don't get nasty when others want to continue with something you started. ;)

Well that may be the case, but you two niggling each other doesn't make either of you look good imo.

yup - I'll take my bat and ball and go home. But don't be surprised if after that exchange that I take a few swipes on my way.
And no I will not discuss my point any longer. I feel like MLK speaking at a KKK rally.

Anyway, that's it for me. I'll return to politics at a later date. :) Sorry if I've upset anyone here. I just think it's a shame that every discussion degenerates this way lately.

I missed what your point was. Can you tell me? I'm just curious.

I'm having a Dov moment in this discussion. ;)

lol...dov got banned from this place for being an arse if you can believe that.

Haggis.

For the record, I consider c-man a friend. We should never ever talk politics to each other. Mostly this issue, which I still consider to be of the big NON variety, sticks in my craw because of the seeming constant watchful eyes for anything that seems inappropriate for our President (this, Michelle's clothes...those kinds of things) when it all really is just "who gives a rat's ass?"

That, and whenever you point this out, you are deemed an ass-kisser, you hear snide remarks like "oh he's not our savior?" and a million other tiny comebacks to go with tiny points.

It gets tiring, and when I saw this I thought "you're freaking kidding me." So I said as much.

Eh, this thread degraded as much as any thread where classic and I discuss politics. ;)

and haggis

I love Haggis. Want to hear the story?

Someone please pass me whateverthefuck youallaresmoking. Thanks.

'ere!

Ummmmmm.... smoked Haggis!

C'mon man don't bogart that haggis

I think I'll avoid whatever y'all are smoking. ;)

I cannot believe you are comparing the Huffington Post with Rush.

Obama apparently knew this person had been in contact with many people in Iran. What is the problem with letting him know in advance, if they wanted to ask him a question, he would answer it? Since the Iranian people had no reason to believe they could ask him a question, that would have had to be set up in advance. I really don't see a problem there. I personally don't believe Obama adequately answered the question, but that is another discussion.

They are the both different sides of the same coin.

Republicans love false equivalency.

Well I am not a Republickin but I fail to how you can draw the conclusion that it is a "false" equivalency. There is nothing false about it. You have two sources of information. Both of which are representing the extremes of the political continuum.

Haggis are moist, and difficult to light.

No, they are not. Rush makes completely ridiculous claims as truth, like Obama is somehow responsible for Mark Sanford's affair of the past year, or that Obama caused the recession. Seriously, I saw clips of his radio show where he actually said those things. I suppose it's a good thing we have proof the recession started before he was elected...

The Huffington Post is admittedly a more left of center news source, but they do not make ludicrous claims like that about the right.

They are no different. But because you are a leftist you can't see it any more than someone who supports what Rush says.