You've got to be kidding! Not only was that line NOT a testy response, it was clearly a planned line to give a pithy, blunt response to a question that everybody knew was coming.

If your whole impression of the press conference was based upon that one misapprehension, you should be reviewing sitcoms.

Seriously?

The question was silly, and the answer was spot on.

Just because CNN works on a hyperventilating 24/7 news cycle, doesn't mean the president should.

If he spent all his time reacting to every little thing, he wouldn't get anything done.

Ed Henry needs to grow up.

Your observation that the president was tired, uptight, and cranky is extremely overblown. In short your writing could benefit from a little less disingenuous slander.

Z:

Man, what press conference did you see? I will agree that our president looked tired, but I saw a press corp that does not still get the basic fact that Obama, not some Cheney designee, is now president. I thought Obama made a clear and cogent case his full econ policy, while the press did not do its homework on the question they chose to ask.

The AP reporter mistaken conflated the AIG and bank regulatory powers of the government, which required the president to seperate them and answer both issues of regulation. Horrible question! Chuck Todd for NBC asked why not more sacrifice by general public, ignoring the burden Obama is asking us as taxpayers to assume to save the asses of the wealthy who got us in this mess. Chip Reid and Jake Tapper, both questions pretty poor approximations of poor Repub talking points. The Washington Times reporter lobbied for retention of higher charitable deduction rates, which i thought Obama smacked down hard and truly.

Ed Henry your hero? Lordy that is foolish. First he asked his question by framing it as the debt that Obama children will inherit (if this plan does work as anticipated)- that use of kids was out of bounds IMHO. Unless, of course, you can cite me Ed Henry asking any Bush 43 cabinet member why their kids weren't over in Iraq. Did he ever ask why neither of the Bush twins in Baghdad? CNN never really asked why ANY of our young was in Iraq, to their great shame. Then Ed asks the same question without any substantive nuances and he sounded like a petty prissy argumentative pencil-pusher for his corporate bosses. I thought Obama's chippy response to Ed's followup was well earned.The less mainstream media types you cited that Obama called on uniformly better questions.

What I saw was a cool competent president only 64 days in office answering all questions, allowing followups, and enduring many fools of the press corps in reasonably good humor. The MSM media seems to have been dumbed down after 8 years of Bush 43 that they are unable or uninterested in following reasonable logic on difficult issues that require paragraphs to explain. Maybe these fools are waiting for the new President to give them cute nicknames.

This is a ridiculously poor review of tonights news conference. The disgraceful performance tonite was that of the MSM.

What else would you expect from a puppet? He's just another bum looking for some $change. Yeah, change... out of all the hardworking Americans pockets that can pay for all the ... ethnicities crying "race" is why we can't make it. Give us more welfare. 2013 where are you????

I got the opposite impression that you did. I thought Obama was on his game, did even better than in his first press conference, and came out of this one stronger than ever. While you applauded Ed Henry's vapid "gotcha" question, I applauded Obama's terse, no-nonsense answer. In that answer, he showed his wisdom: he's not the kind of person who speaks about an issue without fully understanding it. It's exactly the kind of answer I want to hear to such unserious questions.

I didn't think Obama looked uptight and cranky at all nor did Rahm on Larry King. Even though I heard a few comments from reporters that he snapped at Ed Henry, when I watched the press conference a second time I still didn't see it. He answered a question. I have to give the entire Obama administration a lot of credit. I'd be tired and cranky too if I'd only been in office for two months, my proposals hadn't even officially gone into effect and I was getting blamed every day for things that happened years before I even got there.

CNN has been doing the best reporting and is not biased? ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL!

What planet have you been living on?

you need to pay better attention if you think CNN reports right down the middle. because that is a load of BS.

another comment...do you ever get tired of posting a blog only to have the vast majority of comments disagreeing with you? does it ever bother you that as a media critic that you are constantly out of touch with your readers?

I guess this is why eye witness reports are not reliable, because everyone sees something different. I did not see tired and cranky. I saw firm and resolute. I saw the president of the United States push back on self-aggrandizement by reporters eager to make their bones on the president. I saw a president who's trying to right the ship have to contend with a pesky young'un who wants to show everyone that he's just learned to drive.
I guess we "see" based on our preconceived notions of a person, and it seems that the President is seen through the lens of either "too happy black man" or "angry black man." It seems that nuances of emotion are not afforded this particular president.
But he seems to be a man of inner-strength, so I'm confident that he'll use that as his guide, rather than the vacillating opinions of those who are unaware of how their prejudices color their thinking.

Well said, David. The entire event was orchestrated save for the incisive questions.

Even AP has called our president out for the misrepresentation of facts with regard to Blue Chip economic forecasts and other budget projections.

The noteworthy initiation of descent was when President Obama dodged the question about vetoing a congressional budget proposal which excludes the cornerstone of his administration's consumer energy tax policy...cap in trade carbon taxation (a seeming conflict of interest given his background in such investments in his community organizaer days). When pressed, his face fell and it was evident to all that something was seriously amiss (like a child caught with his hand in a cookie jar). This, among other incongruities, made for an obviously difficult night for our president.

I too noticed a stark difference between when he was reading his opening comments from the giant plasma screen in the center of the room (he seemed very presidential then) and when he raised his eyes from his paper list to answer questions from each of the predetermined reporters (his confidence level seemed to increasingly falter as the slog got thicker and thicker).

I thought that the White House Press Corps did their job well, by asking tough questions of our President. I'm baffled as to why they never did this with the last President, who always took a nervous defensive approach to answering their very basic questions.

The President seemed calm and confident to me, which again, is something that the American people like seeing at this point. If he's still got this demeanor in a couple of years, and things are as bad/worse than they are now, then that's a real cause for concern.

MSNBC's coverage after was basically akin to an analysis of the Sermon on the Mount, while Fox went to Karl Rove to tell us that it was boring.

I HATE that we need to have these "experts on cable TV" tell us what we think about what we just watched before we form our own opinion.

I liked Obama's slightly professorial tone at the press conference, and I still relish listening to someone speak in complete sentences. Aftwerward I watched Frontline's "Ten Trillion and Counting" (yes, MPT actually showed a relevant program) and was struck anew with the contrast between Obama and the clips of a smirking Bush 43 as he signed the tax cuts and spending bills that played a big role in the mess Obama inherited. When Obama says he arrived in office facing massive problems, he's getting bushed off, but the Frontline program documents the truth of Bush's malignant actions.

He was probably not angry with the reporter, but with the tele-prompter,
that couldnt provide him with a better answer.

People hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. If you read the transcript of the press conference, you will see that his answers have no substance.

Z,
You and I must have been watching two completely different press conferences. Maybe you need to review an old clip from any of former president Bush's press conferences to recall waht tired and testy looks like. You must be drinking the same anti-Obama coolaid that William Bennet downed during the conference because you two are the only people I've heard and read who actually panned Obama's mastery of the press conference format. Obama remained on message; he was clear and concise; he connected the dots with regard to short and long-term economic growth, and his answer to Ed "I -wanna- be- John- King" Henry's set up was perfect, not testy.

You completely droppped the ball on this one.

If the President needs that much time to express his outrage, he is obviously in the wrong field. We need someone who stays informed of the actions of his administration and accepts responsibility for letting this type of behavior occur.

I saw a calm, confident president. It isn't bad enough that he has almost all the Republicans plus a group of so-called blue dog Democrats determined to obstruct the measures he needs to take to get us out of the mess he inherited. Now he has MSM piling on. They didn't press Bush when he was making the mess. Obama is being held to a much higher standard. Maybe it's because he is a much better man. It was so refreshing to hear him say that he doesn't speak on a subject until he knows more about it. It's a far cry from the doofus who claimed we "misunderestimated" him and couldn't think of a single mistake he had ever made.

"And good for CNN and Henry, that they are willing to press Obama and the administration on the A.I.G. matter and the larger issues......"

Larger issues? Are you kidding? A tiny fraction of bailout money used in an immoral way by the companies who's immoral business practices put them in a position of needing a bailout in the first place; that's the "larger issues"?

How about the fact that the feds should not have stolen the taxpayers money, wealth and future to bail them out in the first place? Doesn't THAT seem like the big issue?

I guess as long as the big government successfully demonizes someone, they can keep the spotlight off their own dark deeds.

Obama was fine and that question by the CNN reporter was silly and really stupid. Obama responded with powerful enthusiasm, and I love. The Pres is not perfect, and actually he did not "snap", this is a misstatement. He looked in total control. Although, I may not like his budget plan and bail out, he is doing his best to help the American people, regardless of all these obstructionist. Furthemore, cable news are not RUNNING this country.

I think you were wearing your fox-goggles. Saying Obama was "tired, uptight and cranky" is like saying W. Bush was engaging, informative, and intelligent.

It's time the media stop their schmoozefest with the president and hold his feet to the fire, his outrage against the AIG wrecked'ms that are only the rotten tip of the American corruption iceberg was orchestrated and does have a hollow ring to it. Greed, lazinesss, corporate and political corruption have pilfered our 401k's, shortchanging the middle class and our future, and are sinking our country and values. Our jobs were outsourced by American corporations the past 20 years, while 20 million foreigners illegally entered the workforce by dodging American immigration law and taking jobs working class Americans should be doing. People should be outraged, and if Obama doesn't turn things around there should be a 10 million middle class man march on Washington to protest. Being the Jesus of cool is one thing, being an effective president that turns our country around is another, and has yet to be effectively done. Bush sold us down the river, Obama, show us you're better than that. Please.

So I agree with others who posted before me and say that this article is insinuating that a situation occurred that did not actually happen.

About time someone at the Sun paid attention to the man behind the curtain. The reason he looked tired and irritated is because he's completely over his head. In order to be politically correct the media propped up and got elected a man who is utterly unqualified to be president. Talk about bringing nothing to the ticket but the color of his skin!

What I took away from the press conference was "This is a serious man." His answers were dense and full of content. I was tired, too, by the end of the hour just from trying to process it all. The only "testiness" I saw was when he answered a question, and the followup was "So you're saying this" and he would have to say, no, and repeat the answer to the first question.

At any rate, I'm glad the press is questioning him -- they rarely questioned Bush about much.

Your writing indicates to me that you are the one who is tired, uptight, and cranky. Sounds like it may be time for a new beat for you ... perhaps obituaries????

Are you a closet righty? Or are you open about your leanings? I don't read you very often, but it seems every time I do, your righty leanings are obvious.

You don't appear to be able to give objective analysis, much less inciteful analysis. Most of the posters disagree with you. So which is it:do you lack analytical ability or are you just letting your political views be known?

With news operations all over the country downsizing, how do you still have a job?

Z:

What is your policy on inappropriate speech and language in these posts? You censored one of my posts weeks ago re the conduct of a MSM type w whom you make occasional professional experience that was not personally, ethnically, or racially tinged- I just said the guy was ethically challenged on an issue-you removed that portion and explained, I accepted that explanation then.

Now however i find you permitting "Yukrr" to state that the Pres econ plan is basically nothing but ethnicities getting paid off by the black president. This seems to be to be classic race-baiting that should be banned from these comments. i understand that in these conversations are being edited on the fly and mistakes can be made, but in a narrative, where i feel you misunderstood the nature of Obama'sresponse to Ann Compton's race question, you should have flagged "Yukrr"s race baiting and excluded it from our polite conversation IMHO. Thoughts?

Hi Tony Joe: You are right about many things in this comment. First, you are one of the most thoughtful and ethically-astute readers and commentators on the blog, so I respect your opinion. Also, as I recall, I did send you a note explaining the slight edit I did in one of your previous comments, because it might be judged borderline libelous. You are also right about editing on the fly. I think in this case, because the president is such a public figure, the kind of language you objected to is acceptable. Though, again, it is borderline, and maybe could have gone the other way. But the kind of thinking reflected in that comment is out there and is already part of public discourse. And I definitely don't think of it as hate speech. I hope that clarfiies a little from my end. Thanks again for a thought-provoking comment and question Z

Is this a joke? CNN is about as down the middle as The Sun is. If Fox is so right wing why do they have the best numbers? Didn't the election go overwhelmingly democrat? Is it only conservatives that watch news or could it be that Fox only looks right wing when compared to the radical leftists on CNN and pMSNBC?

You have taken an important, yet terrifying, step for a journalist - you have exposed the fact, in print, that the emperor is beginning to his shed clothes. For others, the spectacle is too shameful and disturbing to acknowledge at this time. Congratulations on your candor.

It's amazing to see all the "Obama Girls" on this message board. Obumma is the biggest fraud this country has ever seen. He is incapable of doing anything without a flash card, and the subject of race to him is nothing more than a weapon to use when someone really gets on his case, which hasn't happened yet.

I was amused at the free pass he was given about the special olympics comment. Had a white man made the same comment while in the Presidency, they would be calling for his head.

Obama can get away with any comment he wants because he's black. No one in the political world is willing to touch his biggotted babble.

Further, are you really to expect us to believe that he was never around for Reverend Wrights greatest rants? PUHLEEEZ

Diversity = Recognizing differences...discrimination.

Are we one America or are we a 'diverse' America.

Z --Try to buy a HDTv with your stimulus check. If you had you would have seem a President on point, who looked feed up with the idiots asking the got ya questions. that they could not muster the BALLS to ask of George Bush or that Dick Cheney. So if you delight in asses like right wing Ed Henry asking his question and wording it to trap the president either way he answered they great.I saw a president who unlike most of you in print and tv media to short sighted and stupid to do more than incite the drones in the public. Look at some of these post Obama over his head please. Bush was over his head. We have a PRESIDENT that can put together a multi faceted plan for the country financial security after 60+ days

Z,
You're way off-base on this one. I usually enjoy your posts and consider them fair. I didn't see tired nor cranky; I saw competence. Maybe you were just tired and cranky. Rest up!

Hi Patricia, thanks for your comment and for not abandoning the blog over one disagreement. Theer is room for it here. A lot of poeple saw a lot of different things in that press conference. I focused on what I thought was a crack in the TV image. I hope we will agree on the next post you read. Thanks. Z

Z:

I will reluctantly accept that Yukrr is not engaing in hate speech, but it is definately race baiting and in this world of our first black president, we need to be cautious about race baiting that I think this post clearly was.

When Rep Representative Bachmann of Minn wants her supporters "armed and dangerous", I worry about the MSM permitting such denigrating speech to be ruled in bounds for fair public discussion. I still disagree with his inclusion in the narrative-some people need to be told their position is over-the-line.

Also I really think you were very unfair to Obama's response to the race factor in any prez decision-making. Obama has never played the race victim in his campaign and has only on occasion spoken directly to the issue, most noticably with the Philly speech-my personal fav speech of the campaign-during the Rev Wright dustup. He has been consistantly stressing his desire to be president for the entire country, and that answer i feel you put a very unfair spin on.

Hi Tonyjoe: I thank you for your comments, because you skillfully deconstruct and balance the remark to which you took offense. I ,too, loved the Philadelphia speech. But Compton's question only went to the first 65 days. And I do not disagree with what President Obama said. In fact, I applaud the way he said he wants to be judged. Who could blame him for dealing primarily with the economy? As a citizen, I want him to focus on the economy. Again, thanks for your insights and engagement. ...You know what, Tonyjoe? I am going to take it out. You convinced me to error on the side of caution. Thanks for passion. Z

the racial bias of several of your posters is disturbing. It's one of the reasons I avoid these kinds of post boards. So far as Obama being tired or testy? You're entitled to your opinion, but you appear to me to be clueless on this issue. Henry knew he was going to be called on. He had this all figured out. He thought that he'd be canonized for putting Obama on the defensive by his collegues. Funny thing about plans. Mike Tyson once said, "everyone's got a plan until they get hit!" Henry must have forgotten that the ignorant W has left the stage. The man currently occupying it is more than his intellectual equal -- and probably his intellectual superior. Tangle with him at your own risk. Henry got cut down as he deserved to be. He'd better try to make his rep on less capable targets in the future. LOL!

Z,
This is kind of what worried me about Obama. Here we are, on the verge of another great depression and we elect a candidate who hasn't even finished his first term as a Senator. From what I've seen of his recent TV image, it really looks like this stimulus package is going to be rather disorganized.

Z:
first, thanks for taking my point about the race baiting post-there are some lines well short of PC Group Think that need to be maintained....I would propose that you do a seperate post sometime soon on the conduct of the MSM Villagers and their group think. The Ed Henry-Obama dustup is my starting point, esp after reading Henry's ridiculous post on his thinking before and after...he seems much too nflated view of self-Eugene Robinson on Keith last nite that Ed was similar to a bball player being schooled by Kobe B and slam dunked upon, then picking himself up and acting if the crowd's applause was for him not Kobe. I rewatched the conf and it is true that Obama did not answer the AIG bonus part of the ?, but was very detailed and thoughtful on the 2nd part of the ? on growing debt. Upon review of the tape, Henry is more than a little responsible for that, because the ? was pretty poorly phrased, disjointed (Ed breatlessly explains he was "calling an audible" like the QB he never was-again inflated self) and still I objected to throwing Obama's kids into the ?-no one of the MSM Villagers ever did that to a bushie about the war or the off-the books accounting of the war's costs. When Obama finished a detailed response on the debt, Ed said he "pounced w a sharp followup". I genuinely think that Obama had some diff following the ? inarticulately posed, and when Ed said he saw O body language close up, knew he'd hit a nerve. I have reviewed the tape 3 times and i don't see any body lang change in Obama in that moment. I can be a prejudiced observer, but I don't see what Ed said he saw. That is neither here nor there, but i am appalled that Ed says he went there to "make news on something unexpected". His inclusion of the Cuomo reference was very disingenuous because the NY AG's Office has been investigating AIG for several yrs, back to Eliot Spitzer and clearly know more than any organization outside of AIG about that company/criminal enterprises ops. [Kudos to CNN's Fareed for getting Spitzer back on tv this weekend on AIG].

Ed seems only to know what his fellow Vilagers have been discussing last week.
It is not that i or the public want the press to fawn about the president; what i see is a press that no longer knows the diff between basically uninformed,obnoxious or being obseqious. I posted earlier about the AP reporter whose first ? on AIG and bank regulatory authorities and clearly did not know that diff reg powers were applicable to diff financial institutions, requiring Obama to go professorial in explaining what she should have researched before asking the ?. Worse example of simple minded group think was the assumptions behind Chuck Todd's silly ? about asking American people for sacrifice. DC cocktail crowd agrees finally that after 9/11 Bush should have asked citizens for service sacrifice. Now we have an economic 9/11, ergo President Obama must
ask more middleclass Americans to sacrifice. (Subliminal message-we the wealthy can't afford the tax redistribution that Obama is to initiate).Their 401Ks have been sacrificed, their futures compromised, their dreams deferred, and Todd and Villagers want them to pitch in some more! This is stupid cocktail DC mindset with a ton of corporatist group thinking behind it. It says next summer you guys take another stay-cation, while we the elite continue to enjoy Martha Vineyard.

Where was the question from the MSM this night on criminal investigations of corporate pirates involved in this mess? Did not hear that from the "pouncing Ed Henry"? Why didnt Todd's ? center on the extent Obama would be pursuing criminal investigations of the corporate thieves of the Vineyard? CNBC execs might not want to have the NBC WH reporter put that thought in the mind of all those prime time viewers? Much more likely than Obama flinching at a pouncing Ed Henry.

I love your work on this blog, but next time lets examine a little more carefully the conduct of the Fourth Estate please...sorry for this ramble but i think the core issue is important and can help us as citizens

Hi Tonyjoe: You never ramble. It is great stuff and I appreciate it. And you were right yesterday, and I appreciate the patient way you made your compelling case. I will go back through this and reply in you detail tonight or tomorrow. On a deadline for two Sunday pieces right now. Z

Z

Thanks for your consideration of my MSM concerns in the future-could I add for your consideration this ?.

If Ed Henry really wanted to "pounce" and make news in an unexpected fashion, why not ask a question about the AIG's payment of $165 million, but instead asked a probing ? about the most recent $182 BILLION
bailout payment- a much more significant risk to the American taxpayer. These billions were quickly passed on to american corp and FOREIGN interests.

I suggest that ? would be too close to the corporatist interests that CNN is much too protective of. Here is a sample ? I would have applauded Ed asking : "Recently Goldman Sacks alarmed by the AIG bonus issues, says it wants to pay back the millions it got from TARP funds, to avoid a similar review of its compensation packages. Would the Administration consider the receipt of 15 million Goldman TARP money, but not returning the $16 BILLION in AIG bailout funds it just received to waive govt review of Goldman's use of those billions that might go to excessive comp? Or would Goldman's independence require the return of all govt money?"

That would be a tough fair question, clearly carefully phrased to make news that the public could use to better understand the mess we are in.

Z
please amend my last post-Goldman got $10 million in TARP money (not $15 million as i stated in my hypothetical ?)

Give the man a chance! he's only been in Office for 68 days and he's wading in financial "waste' left over from the last eight years and probably years before. He is the first president who didn't speak down to me as "President". He speaks to me as a real person, that's why I'm amazed fgter the last eight years that I'm actually listening to a real representative of the American people. God, it feels good to be an American again.

JB

Get ready for Obama TV. The Obama White House officials decided to do their own media report on the recent visit of the Lady Huskie basketball team. The OTV production is complete with cuts, interviews, and chyrons identifying who's speaking. Also, just like a network, they have their own little logo! What news coverage will they send us next? Take a look at the video here... http://pfx.me/ea

I would probably look tired too. Not an easy job that the president has to deal with. I am glad to see the focus on the economy. I think that President Obama is the one who wants to put more regulations and overseeing into these kinds of corporations, I can't give any fault to that. Maybe the corporations should explain to us why they feel they should get bonuses when they ruined the companies to begin with. President Obama can only put changes in place now to see that things like this don't happen again. He is taking a reactive approach to this whole mess, give him a chance to fix the problems. Sherry Tellitocci

I guess this is why eye witness reports are not reliable, because everyone sees something different. I did not see tired and cranky. I saw firm and resolute. I saw the president of the United States push back on self-aggrandizement by reporters eager to make their bones on the president. I saw a president who's trying to right the ship have to contend with a pesky young'un who wants to show everyone that he's just learned to drive.
I guess we "see" based on our preconceived notions of a person, and it seems that the President is seen through the lens of either "too happy black man" or "angry black man." It seems that nuances of emotion are not afforded this particular president.
But he seems to be a man of inner-strength, so I'm confident that he'll use that as his guide, rather than the vacillating opinions of those who are unaware of how their prejudices color their thinking.

Posted by: coop

Well said, Coop!!