Obama to Andrew Cuomo: Zing?
CNN's Ed Henry got an interesting response out of the president by suggesting that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who successfully pushed 15 of the top 20 AIG bonus recipients to give back their money, is getting more done on the executive-compensation front than the White House.
Obama avoided addressing the Cuomo comparison directly, but said that expressing a public opinion on AIG bonuses "took us a couple of days, because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." Is the implication, then, that Cuomo got out too far in front of the populist furor too quickly?
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
That comment may have been in response to some of the questions tonight.
Some of the questions showed a lack of understanding on the subject by the questioner.
Or the questioner was told by his/her boss to ask a grandstanding or ignorant question.
March 24, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think?
God, I thought the press' questions were AWFUL.
Ed Henry: what a toad.
Chuck Todd: after squeaking all week on KO & Rachel about how he was "collecting questions from 'real folks', " he asks that stupid, STUPID item suggesting Americans aren't sacrificing enough.
The idiot from CBS: same smarmy question; different press conference.
Hey, Mr. President, how about you hold a press conference where the "press" is the DFH bloggers? You'd get a hell of a lot better questions from folks substantially more knowledgeable.
Of course Rahm might not like it . . .
March 25, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reminded of the YouTube debate, where the questions from the public were much more substantive and informative than the ones from the professional press.
March 25, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, totally agree. Was clearly a slapdown of Ed Henry's lame attempt at a hardball gotcha.
Obama didn't say or imply anyone who responded sooner was "out ahead." Reading that into it is really a stretch.
His point was clear, he wanted that time to gather information before responding, and thinks that's reasonsbale. Therefore the question, the presumption he should have resonded earlier, is a false premise and just lame, 24/hr news cycle hysteria and gotcha games.
March 25, 2009 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that zinger was aimed at the chattering class of Washington, and not at Andrew Cuomo.
March 24, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think?
March 24, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That one was aimed directly at Ed Henry (a former gossip columnist) who was trying to stir up a story. Obama was having none of it.
March 24, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that was a mild lecture not to Cuomo, but to the whole in-it-and-of-it D.C. punditocracy and the pitchfork and torches crowd. I think it was a mild rebuke of those chicken littles who feed off and peddle despair because X hasn't happened in Y period of time. I think it was a signal that he is not going to get rolled based on what the likes of Santelli or Krugman or Cramer or Bill O'Reilly or Moulitsas or Kurtz is screaming (well, in the case of David Kurtz, writing eloquently) about that particular day.
March 24, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the Schors. I forgot the Schors.
March 24, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. Totally agree.
March 25, 2009 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS, Ed Henry certainly made my shitlist with that especially stupid question.
In fairness though, all they have time for are zingers. It's hard to imagine what a good press corps might ask in that format. It'll probably remain a mystery.
March 25, 2009 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Lars Thorwald: Obama is God. Anyone who disagrees with any of his decisions, or those of his appointees, is by definition a screaming lunatic.
March 25, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh fuck off troll.
March 25, 2009 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter kozmik: I got nothin' left.
Well, it's not really shorter. Just clearer.
March 25, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was a mild rebuke of those chicken littles who feed off and peddle despair because X hasn't happened in Y period of time.
hmmmm.... straw man much?
March 25, 2009 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are adorable.
Obama is not God, nor is he one of the gods. Frak off.
March 25, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it was a strawman then you were raising. Thanks for clearing that up.
March 25, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
After quick scan of the tubes, I think TPM is the only major sympathetic blog to suggest that Obama's comment was meant for Cuomo. Not sure what to make of it, and I don't want to hate on Elana here.
I will repeat what I've blogged about on this site, and what lots of other readers have suggested, which is that TPM kind of bit down hard on the president's economic team during this AIG mess and sometimes came a bit unglued. So maybe in the get'em fervor of the story, Cuomo was their white knight who should have received an amen from Obama--or something. Hence Schor's perceived slight.
Might be time to push reset here. TPM is valiantly chasing the bank bailout policy. Just keep some perspective, guys.
March 24, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that. This is a total catastrophic mess they've inherited. Some perspective would be nice.
March 24, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Newsday also thought it possible that Obama was referring to Cuomo.
www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-pojani0325-col,0,498060.column
Still think it's an off-the-wall opinion, however, and I wouldn't have even thought of it until I saw it here first.
If Cuomo was the jerk in the press pool badgering the president instead of Ed Henry, then maybe...
March 24, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Manufactured controversy? Wha? When did the MSM start acting like the tabloids?
March 25, 2009 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ed Henry asked a two part question: one part about Andrew Cuomo (which the Pres. seemed to skate over) and the second part: why did it take you so long to respond to the flapdoodle we were ginning up? It was to the second part that the Pres. directed his lovely response, and it did not appear to have anything to do with Cuomo.
March 24, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm hoping TPM will dial in on is that Obama is basically saying all the options are bad, and they need better tools, actually the agency and power, to handle an AIG situation better. Something like FDIC. So they can unwind that sort of meltdown properly without it holding the financial system and taxpayers hostage.
Right now they just can't do it as well as they should becasue such an agency isn't in place.
As a medical analogy for an FDIC like body and better regulation: He needs more preventative medicine and a fully equipped surgery, not better bandaids or body bags.
He's totally right about that imo.
March 25, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was not directed at Cuomo. The question was why did it take you two days to come out and say anything about the bonuses. the proximity of that question to a different question about Cuomo doesn't make his answer to the one about why his response took "so long" drama.
March 24, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. That clearly was not the implication. Obama's curt response was to the "gotcha" nature of the question.
March 24, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was struck by the question about the homeless coming, what, half an hour or so into preening questions from the wealthy pundit class. How totally divorced from the real pain in the country can these magpies be? And Obama isn't much better...invest, invest, invest... blah, blah, blah...
March 24, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you're the asshole who cheered because another poster had lost his job. Where do you get off lecturing people about "real pain"?
Jerk.
March 24, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did that really happen? That's ugly stuff.
March 24, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did that really happen?
I doubt it. FreeRider's attacks on bluebell are getting old and entirely predictable. The fact that FreeRider can't be bothered to come up with a link supports the conclusion.
March 25, 2009 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Turd Blossom, here's the link:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/obama-promotes-budget-in-new-web-address.php#comments
VivaAmerica posted about his job loss, saying that's probably why donations to the DNC are down. The always sympathetic, perceptive Bluebell somehow erroneously concluded that he was a Republican and said "you're getting what you deserve."
Even if Viva were a Republican, only a total asshole could take joy in another person's suffering. But when that asshole is always here talking about caring for the poor and social justice, it's even more egregious. I guess Bluebell really means "let's look out for the less fortunate . . . as long as they share my political views."
March 25, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Proving again that irony isn't dead, FreeRider's sudden, touching concern for respect for others on the board immediately turns into unwitting self-parody.
I'll stipulate that the particular bluebell post in question (1) happened and (2) was fairly nasty, and the snark therein was off-base. But ultimately that's not the issue, as I actually was pointing to in my post upthread.
It's just so transparently obvious, to one who has had the misfortune of following your posts, that your incessant attacks on bluebell, and your selective righteous outrage at this particular comment of hers, are based, not on any real objection to anything nasty bluebell has written, but on the fact that bluebell disagrees with you, and worse, has committed the unpardonable sin -- criticizing a certain elected official, or any of his policies, or any of his appointees. It's not limited to bluebell, either. It doesn't matter from what angle, or political perspective -- that sin must be cleansed, at all costs, immediately. This particular case is merely an excuse for you to mount yet another ad hominem attack on bluebell. I'm sure you'll milk that excuse for all it's worth. It's par for the course.
I guess FreeRider really means "let's show kindness and respect for others here.... as long as they share my political views."
March 27, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you claimed I was lying but now that it's clear I was not, you spin off onto something else.
I'll state outright: I don't like Bluebell or Labonne. So, sue me. YAWN. They are total whiners who look for reasons to trash the president without ever offering a solution. They are invested in grievance. In other words, they are losers--just like you!
But I would never take pleasure if they lost their jobs or suffered some personal misfortune, even if they are assholes.
March 27, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spin all you want, FreepRuder.
I didn't claim you were lying. I said that:
1) I doubted that it happened.
In that I was wrong.
2) That your incessant attacks on bluebell are old and predictable.
In that, as I proceeded to document, I was right. Moreover, I showed that it's not limited to bluebell but to those who think it's OK to criticize a certain elected official.
3) That you hadn't bothered to provide a link. Which you hadn't. And didn't until you were called out on it.
The rest of what I documented, in my subsequent posts, shows, again, the transparent hypocrisy of your selective outrage against those who have committed the heresy of disagreeing with you. As well as your juvenile methods of debating, your evasion of legitimate questions when posed in response to your sweeping assertions ("It's unconstitutional! It has a zillion unintended consequences, even though I can't name a single one!" ad nauseam), and the general gutter level of what tries to pass for "commentary" in your posts.
March 30, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
While we're at it, here's another of FreeRider's touchingly respectful, kind posts on the board.
March 27, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another.
For added hilarity, you can look up and downthread in that particular comments section to view just how substance-free FreeRider's comments are.
FreeRider: Krugman! Krugman! Krugman!
Sane people: Krugman. Baker. Stiglitz. Kuttner. Black. Galbraith.
For starters.
Tool.
March 27, 2009 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, just">http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/will-senate-slow-the-aig-taxs-roll-to-a-halt.php#comment-3416410>just one more little gem from our FreeRidin' friend. Remember to look up and downthread for more hilarity.
And this is the person who has the chutzpah to call bluebell an "asshole."
March 27, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad code. Replay. Once more, with Preview.
Ahem.
Okay, just one more little gem from our FreeRidin' friend. Remember to look up and downthread for more hilarity.
And this is the person who has the chutzpah to call bluebell an "asshole."
March 27, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell has always seemed pretty obnoxious.
March 25, 2009 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given what I've just documented upthread from FreeRider, are you sure it's bluebell who's "pretty obnoxious"?
Or is it just that you disagree with her?
March 27, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it really happened. It was pretty uncool.
March 25, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Elana,
Don't be such a ... Heather.
This isn't jr. high.
March 24, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved that answer.
March 24, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was in response to a shallow "gotcha" kind of question from a TV pseudo journalist of the herd that's conditioned to try to start fights in order to drive ratings.
Much like this post, Elana. Could you (or your editor) have phrased the headline differently? Yes.)
I'd like to think that the American public is smarter than that, and judging from the comments here so far, I'm right.
Listen and learn.
March 24, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I generally don't look at the byline for these posts, but it just occured to me. Elana is the same blogger who did the "When the debate comes down to a Nixon-style "what did he know and when did he know it," things aren't looking good. And we may have just reached that point for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner." hit job post.
I think all evidence points to TPM having a conservative mole on the inside.
March 24, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Elana Schor is a conservative mole, then I am a six-foot tall Japanese schoolgirl with a pet unicorn.
March 24, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I KNEW it!!!
March 24, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're HOT!
March 25, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
apparently, i5kfun disagrees with obama on the whole knowing what you're talking about before speaking rule of thumb.
March 24, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule of thumb!? Do you know where that expression comes from? In the early 1900's it was legal to beat your wife so long as you used a stick no wider than your thumb.
March 24, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she just somehow got confused that being snarky is a sign of intelligence.
If she sticks to reporting she'll be fine. Every time she tries to stir the pot she just embarrasses herself. Every time.
Then again there is a weirdly large amount of catty, stir the pot, innuendo instead of information on this site. It's like a weird hybrid of Foreign Policy magazine and the Daily News.
March 24, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leave her alone! She's doing a good job. You may not agree with everything she writes but that's the nature of the beast. Chill out and lay off her.
March 24, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That slap was squarely up side the head of Ed Henry for his smart-a follow up question to the President.He will think twice the next time if he gets a next time>
March 24, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's absurd that this is your take.
First, Obama's response to AIG had nothing to do with Cuomo. Second, Cuomo was not responsible for AIG employees returning the bonuses -- Liddy asked for the returns. Just because AC took credit, doesn't mean he deserves it. Why not give the credit to Liddy? Because it's easier to demonize him.
Can you think for yourself?
March 24, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As somebody said a comment from rural PA republican citizen
"Obama is right, Go big of Go Home" you don't put out a forest fire with a bucket.
March 24, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Ed Henry mention the Obama daughters in his question? I think that was what pissed off Obama. So he shut Ed Henry down, it was such a shut down, that even the other members of the press corps laughed at Ed too. Go back and re-watch the tape, they laughed at him.
March 24, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know it hit home since after the press conference, CNN was hating on POTUS: "He looked tired" "He seemed angry", etc...
Whatevah CNN! Is it any wonder CNN is 4th in the ratings.
March 24, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This answer takes the prize : the question asked about the President's daughters was really stupid, unnecessary and personal.
The general level of the questions tonight was very low. The reporters get nervous and excited about being on national TV.
They think they have to ask the President a tough question - that he may fumble or bumble his response - and that the questioner would somehow thereby seem important or serious.
The dumbest questions are of the fake joe sixpack variety : these questions always sound fake ... do they fool anyone ?
March 24, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was that guy thinking? Like the President doesn't think of his kids when he makes these decisions.
Did he think he was going to make Obama have some kind of epiphany? "Oh, duh, gee I never thought of it that way?"
March 24, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Henry HUMILIATED himself in front of millions of people. CNN and the CNN pundits are in TOTAL denial, they actually think Ed Henry came across well during that exchange.
March 24, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking about Chuck Todd's question and I still don't understand what he was asking. He started as if he was going to ask a relatively populist question about what Obama in the midst of this big giveaway was asking of our financial overlords. And eventually in his answer, Obama touched on that I suppose because he thought that's where Todd was going too.
But Todd veered off into this bizarro and vacuous question about what Obama thought the American people should sacrifice. That would be those people who have lost their retirement, their jobs whatever equity they thought they had in their homes... to those people who are getting no recourse loans along with massive payouts.
What was Todd thinking? Did he think he was getting too close to a substantive but populist point? Did he decide that Bush said people should go shopping and Obama might be that stupid to say: "Shit Chuck, if everyone goes shopping the economy will hum like that sound in your head?"
Snark aside, I am serious. The veering off point was so evident I wonder what Todd thought he was asking.
March 24, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was a set-up. He wanted Obama to list some things that folks could do and then tomorrow's headline would have been "Obama asks citizens to sacrifice while he's giving CEO's bonuses".
March 24, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO, the Pres. got around to answering this partially in his response to the question about limiting the tax deduction for charitable donations. The big earners can sacrifice by stopping the whing and keeping up or increading their charitable donations.
March 24, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said before, what made Ed question so bad was that he tried to name drops the Obama daughters, that whole "what about your daughters" crap. If there is one thing we've learned, do not mess with the Obama daughters. Haven't anyone noticed yet, that all the vulgar criticism have been directed to Obama or Michelle, not Malia or Sasha.
That is where the line was drawn, and that was what made Ed Hengy's question rude, he was trying to get a rise of POTUS by mentioning the daughters. Well he poke the lion, and the lion bit his head off.
Someone on DKOS said, wouldn't it have been just as rude to ask Bush a question like "what if it was your daughters..." in reference to 9/11 or Katrina.
That's where Ed's question went wrong. Plus, he asked once and POTUS answered, but the mofo asked the same question again?
March 25, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the implication is that Obama seems to be equating DOING something about the bonuses at AIG with TALKING about doing something. While Cuomo was forcing the AIG CEO to disclose the names and threatening to make them public, Obama was only talking about doing something to get back the money, when what he was actually DOING was kissing up to wall street and trowing cold water on the bonus tax in order to sell them his bank bailout scheme.
March 25, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elana, I'm sorry but you just don't have the capacity for snarkblogging. This isn't Wonkette, don't use "zing" in your headlines.
March 25, 2009 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. Wonkette. Zing!
March 25, 2009 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw it as drawing a contrast between himself and his predecessor (and secondarily, reminding Ed Henry that thinking before ya' talk is something pretty much everyone in Washington oughta do seriously more of).
March 25, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The press corp are not used to having a president who can communicate intelligently and at the same time speak to the American people. To me they all looked a little shrunken, almost sitting with there mouth hung open. I have to admit I would have been too, even from home I was amazed by our president's grasp on the range of subjects. I've never seen a president speak like this to the press.
Todd is still getting his feet under him in this role. And there is no way Obama was taking a shot at Cuomo, it was directed to Ed Henry. Lesson: leave the Obama girls out of questions, they are not to be used as tools by the press.
March 25, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has to be the worst post ever. I didn't get to watch the press conference.....Elana, why didn't you actually post the question that was asked in full?
March 25, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear.
As one who has complimented Shana on her diligence as a reporter, I must point out that her linking Barack's zinging of Ed Henry to AG Cuomo is nothing short of idiotic.
March 25, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who the Hell is Shana?
March 25, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elana before adequate caffeine.
March 25, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I heard him answer Ed (idiot question) Henry I thought the President was simply responding to the idiot question in a direct way, I didn't think about Andrew Cuomo at all. The Press last night seemed to want to dispel the notion they are 100% behind the President, by asking every right-wing tool question they could! They came off looking like morons, is that what they want, to look like ill-prepared morons? I am dead sure they prepared by listening to right wing radio all day long, because for some reason even though that side lost and lost handily last election, they are given much more credibility than say the MAJORITY who support the President and understand it takes more than 60 days to turn an economy around... The press did not do themselves any favors last night.
March 25, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Loved how Alex Castillanos on CNN remarked at what a bad mood Obama was in, when just the day before he was admonishing him for being to happy during the 60 minutes interview. The things that Republicans like him and Joe Scarborough grasp onto as criticism is so weak, it is laughable!
March 25, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do the work. Cuomo's announcement came considerably after Obama told us about his anger. How could Obama be criticizing Cuomo when Cuomo took longer to announce results than Obama did to express anger?
Instead of worrying about obscure political points, might it not be better to concentrate on what actually happened?
March 25, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't take it as a shot at Cuomo at all but rather a the shot at the press -- in this case, Ed Henry of CNN -- that tries to make something like the AIG bonuses into a silly-assed competition between politicians. Obama "explained" there were things more important to him than being the first to express outrage -- like knowing what he was talking about.
March 25, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got it exactly right LD!
March 25, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, the slap was at the babbling press who can prattle on endlessly with no consequences, unlike the President. Stop trying to create a controversy where there isn't one.
What a shameful display by our press. There was not one substantive question about Foreign policy. What a bunch of clowns. I'm surprised they didn't ask him about his bracket picks, or what he thinks of the mothering skills of the octopulet lady.
March 25, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink