Reactions to Obama's press conference

[Dinsdale]

Talked with a guy over lunch whle working out. It is funny - he and I disagree on just about every “social/political” issue, yet are right in line in terms of personal/family matters (save religion which we don’t discuss). I knew he was a very strong Bush supporter.

He said he considers Obama fundamentally dishonest, and characterized the differences between Obama and Bush as “different communication styles.” I don’t see it, but I appreciate his honest opinion. It is curious to me what contributes to our perceiving things so differently.

Hell, this is probably the type of navel-gazing I should have gotten out of my system over a bottle of Jack and a couple of bowls back in college!

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, Obama’s use of complete sentences including subjects, verbs, and predicates does constitute a different communication style, no question.

[Nobody]

I didn’t hear all of the press conference, but what I heard was so-so, except for the question of whether the Bush administration sanctioned torture. He did something that I absolutely hate politicians doing, he dodged the question with a response that didn’t answer the question. And, in typical Obama fashion, he gave a long non-answer:

@Obama

What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, “We don’t torture,” when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood — you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s — what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And — and so I strongly believed that the steps that we’ve taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a — in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us — it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I’m very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we’re taking on an unscrupulous enemy. OK?

When pressed on the matter he still danced around the issue:

@Obama

I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the — whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

I absolutely HATE it when politicians duck, dodge, or dance around a question. I’d have much more respect for him if he’d just say something like “We’re still looking into that.” or “I’m sorry, but I can’t answer your question.” Or something along those lines.

[Voyager]

@Justin_Bailey

You know, I thought it was just me, but you’re right. Since late February it feels like I haven’t seen him on TV at all. I don’t think I ever went two days without seeing Bush, let alone two months.

Someone I saw talking about FDR said that FDR strictly limited the number of fireside chats in order to make them special. If Obama were on TV, either making speeches or answering questions, every day, he’d soon wear out his welcome, and reduce the impact of important events. So I’m fine with him not being on every second.

[Voyager]

@SpoilerVirgin

I told someone yesterday that in the typical presidential press conference, about 90% of the answers are canned statements that avoid the question entirely, while about 10% are substantive responses.

In President Obama’s press conferences, those numbers are reversed. I agree that on the question about the Bush administration’s responsibility for torture, and the one about state secrets, he gave typical political non-answers. But on every other question in the press conference, he gave thoughtful responses that addressed the question asked. To me, that’s a remarkable turnaround from previous administrations (Clinton included), and why for the first time in my life I now eagerly seek out presidential press conferences and watch them in their entirety.

I didn’t see the last one, but at previous ones I’ve noticed that he takes the question, makes the talking points he wants to make, and then finishes by actually answering the question - only sometimes building on the talking point. I think that is very effective, and it is impressive that he remembers the question. I assume he is composing his answer while giving the talking point, but that is good also. He also listens to himself, like joking about how he wouldn’t use the word “enchanting” to describe meeting the troops. It’s clear to me that he is not only giving the points but thinking about giving the points at the same time, which is not easy to do.

[Voyager]

@Nobody

I didn’t hear all of the press conference, but what I heard was so-so, except for the question of whether the Bush administration sanctioned torture. He did something that I absolutely hate politicians doing, he dodged the question with a response that didn’t answer the question. And, in typical Obama fashion, he gave a long non-answer:

When pressed on the matter he still danced around the issue:
I absolutely HATE it when politicians duck, dodge, or dance around a question. I’d have much more respect for him if he’d just say something like “We’re still looking into that.” or “I’m sorry, but I can’t answer your question.” Or something along those lines.

What I’ve heard is that it would be difficult or impossible to get a conviction of the CIA torturers given that they had explicit DoJ permission for what they did. (Assuming the followed the guidelines.) To get convictions of Yoo and that crowd it would have to be shown that they acted in bad faith. I’m not sure what he could say that is both supportable and which wouldn’t give anyone false hopes, or be a total non-answer like “we’re looking at it” which he has said already. Saying that this was torture and it was wrong is hardly wishy-washy, IMO.

[Nobody]

@Voyager

What I’ve heard is that it would be difficult or impossible to get a conviction of the CIA torturers given that they had explicit DoJ permission for what they did. (Assuming the followed the guidelines.) To get convictions of Yoo and that crowd it would have to be shown that they acted in bad faith. I’m not sure what he could say that is both supportable and which wouldn’t give anyone false hopes, or be a total non-answer like “we’re looking at it” which he has said already. Saying that this was torture and it was wrong is hardly wishy-washy, IMO.

He was asked if Bush sanctioned torture. It’s pretty much a yes or no question.

And I don’t mind long answers, as long as they actually answer the question. He could have even said something along the lines of “He sanctioned waterboarding and other practices that he and his administration did not consider to be torture, but now that I’m president I consider them torture and have put a stop to them.” An answer like that acknowledges the difficulties of prosecuting former Bush administration officials, while at the same time allowing Obama to break away from Bush policies, which is what I assume that he is trying to achieve.

Anyway, sorry to harp on this one answer, when there were many other questions asked and answered. It just really irks me when a politician responds to a question with a non-answer.

[Lakai]

I don’t agree with Obama on everything, but I do like that he is willing to deal with stupid criticisms with a healthy dose of logic.

The way he explained his view of bipartisanship was pretty well thought out and made sense. Unlike the simply minded Bush era response to opposition by labeling them un-American. When they wanted to be more specific they would say someone was a socialist or that they were making America less safe.

The things I disagree with Obama on are things he hasn’t explained yet. Specifically I would like to know why the bank CEOs haven’t been fired? Why is Geitner in charge of the bailout when he was in charge of regulating New York City banks while they were making all these bad loans? Most importantly I worry about how Obama is going to pay for his budget. So far he hasn’t explained himself on these issues and the press hasn’t really questioned him on it.