Obama On 60 Minutes

The transcript. On torture and Gitmo:

Kroft: There are a number of different things that you could do early pertaining to executive orders. One of them is to shutdown Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?

Mr. Obama: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.

Obama can do these things on Day 1. Of course, closing Gitmo will take some time to do but announcing its closing can happen Day 1. And torture ("enhanced interrogation" as John Brennan describes it) can end and must end immediately. No ifs and or buts.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< On Greg Craig | More Clinton Derangement Syndrome >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My favorite answer (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:03:29 PM EST
    CBS) Kroft: Have you been reading anything about the Depression? Anything about FDR?

    Mr. Obama: You know, I have actually. There's a new book out about FDR's first 100 days and what you see in FDR that I hope my team can-- emulate, is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence, and a willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again. . .

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    This is progressivism:

    "We do expect that he's gonna be thinking about ordinary Americans and not just the wealthy and the powerful. And we do expect that. if something doesn't work that they're gonna try something else until they find something that does.' And, you know, that's the kind of common sense approach that I want to take when I take office. . . .

    I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.


    It was a good answer (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    It really speaks to what FDR was at heart, a pragmatist.  

    The fact that Obama spends a lot of time reading about FDR and Lincoln is very encouraging to me.


    I wrote about this (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:35:32 PM EST
    back in 2006. It is what progressivism is. It is what FDR did.

    It ids what Democrats should be about.

    I remember writing, (i'll find it for tomorrow) 'if cutting taxes for the wealthy" is for the Common Good. Then we should be for cutting taxes for the wealthy.'

    It is the GOALS that makes us progressives, not the specific policy.  We are for what works for our goals.


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    cutting taxes for the wealthy is not helpful to our goals and that is why we do not favor it as a general policy.

    1936 (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

    Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

    Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

    An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

    For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

    Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

    The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

    Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

    These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

    I know 70 years isn't much in the grand scheme (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:15:09 AM EST
    but it's amazing how things really haven't changed much..

    I guess through the change things always cycle back to economic dictatorship...


    Unchanged because (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:17:07 AM EST
    it's ALWAYS the same battle and that will never change.

    Beautiful (none / 0) (#49)
    by gtesta on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:17:47 AM EST
    although you left of the "this generation of Americans has a rendevous with destiny" line....my favorite.
    New Deal apologist's like to argue FDR's programs didn't work.  What really happened was that FDR tried to cut government spending too soon in 1937 and re-triggered an economic contraction.

    Completely agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:40:53 PM EST
    and that is one of the problems I have had with liberalism for most of my adult life.  Instead of looking to solve problems it seemed to be focused on defending the victories of the past.  

    Unless a specific policy has a clear moral hazard associated with it, I am willing to at least consider it regardless of whether it is advocated by the right or left.  Granted there have been very few policy initiatives from the Right that I have found compelling but I will at least give them a chance.


    The Right has been quite pragmatic (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:15:47 AM EST
    in pursuing its goal, which is to further concentrate the wealth of this country in the top .1% or so of the population.
    Now, if they would only campaign on their actual aims, they would never win an election.

    And That (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:54:09 AM EST
    One Voter is the TRUTH.

    It's the fundamental truth of what politics is ALWAYS about whether the issue of a given election is or is not about the economy.

    In the 1964 election Goldwater was by and large truthful about his aims regarding the economy and the role of government.  He got slaughtered. And justifiably so.


    Sounds like FDR circa 1933 (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:11:35 PM EST
    I hope he's finished the book. . .

    Or at least gotten to 1936 (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:12:01 PM EST
    My least favorite answer... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:23:17 PM EST
    From Obama:

    I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. (emphasis added)

    WTF does Obama mean by that?

    Is he speaking in the past and/or present tense? Does he mean that the Bush Administration has never engaged in torture. Does he mean that the US doesn't presently engage in torture?

    Or, is he suggesting, like GW Bush, that "enhanced interrogation" doesn't constitute torture?

    Or, is he being philosophical? Meaning that an America which is true to its own founding ideals is, by definition, an America that "doesn't torture"

    Given the foregoing, I find it impossible to discern what Obama means when he says:

    And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture.

    Does he mean that he is going to make sure that America doesn't do something that he's already said it doesn't do.


    It seemed to me (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:26:33 PM EST
    that he was saying that America as a nation is not a  nation engages in torture, implying that our moral standards will not allow for that.  He goes on to say that he will make sure that we don't, in reality, torture people.

    We should not torture, but (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:32:44 PM EST
    the fact of the matter is that we do. QED.

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Thanin on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:56:49 PM EST
    its like when someone says America isnt a country that gives up.  They arent being literal but are saying that the spirit of America isnt to give up.

    Well, "Doesn't torture" is a WORM... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:18:25 AM EST
    Another situation where we don't know for sure What Obama Really Meant.

    what? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:56:35 AM EST
    Maybe it's a WORM if you're being obtuse about it.  It was VERY CLEAR to me what he meant.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:08:36 AM EST
    WORM cuts both ways, and this stuff saying how he's parsing like bush does is very WORM like.

    The acronym WORM cropped up (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:34:29 AM EST
    on the blogs a few months ago. It was applied to commenters and bloggers who continually glossed over Obama's gaffes with their own benign explanations about What Obama Really Meant.

    I don't presume to know, and I'm not trying to tell anyone, What Obama Really Meant when he said: "America doesn't torture".

    The opacity of that particular statement led me to a number of questions, rather than wishful explanations, as to What Obama Really Meant.

    Perhaps Obama will tell us for himself this time; hopefully soon.  


    well (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

    I'd say it's a formulation simiar to America shouldn't torture and that torture is not an American virtue.


    'Zactly (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:26:21 PM EST
    B. Clinton approval ratings higher than Reagan (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:11:59 AM EST
    Obama is working my last nerve with his continued iteration of the thoroughly ahistorical meme that Reagan was a wise and rightfully revered President. The record (i.e. reality) shows that Bill Clinton was held in much higher esteem.

    According to various sources, including The Roper Center Public Opinion Archives: Bill Clinton's highest approval rating was 5% higher than that of Ronald Reagan during their respective Presidencies. Clinton's end-of-term approval rating was also 5% higher than Reagan's.

    *Highest Approval Rating, while in office:

    Bill Clinton = 73%; Ronald Reagan = 68%.

    *End-of-term Approval Rating:

    Bill Clinton = 68%; Ronald Reagan = 63%.

    *Incidentally, Clinton left office with the highest end-of-term rating since
      polling began in 1930.

    The GOP and the corporate press corps have labored intensively to spit-polish Reagan's Presidency. This was particularly necessary during the past 8 years, with the GOP brand going down the toilet.

    So, let's just get the "F" over Reagan, shall we.


    Any mention (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:14:28 AM EST
    of Reagan that is used in a sentence that does NOT include either 'should have been impeached' or 'one of our 10 worst Presidents' or 'did lasting damage to the nation' rankles me no end.

    But I think that Obama's still using the schtick here.

    The schtick in this case IMO is to keep the media on his side.  The media loves them their Reagan.


    I go nuts when I see or hear (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    any of those jerks drooling over what a hero Reagan was...
    Reagan?????  A hero?  He supported Pinochet...propped him...Pinochet was a despot who had people who did not agree with his monetary policy "disappeared, murdered, tortured.."

    His administration supported and even trained the despotic military of Nicaragua and......supported the murdering and disappearing of thousands of indigenous people.  

    Yet Matthews can barely say Reagan without drooling; the reverence afforded this dead president who used "coded" language in reference to African Americans in Philadelphia MI.....the same people who accused Bill Clinton of using racism adore Reagan whose racist tactics were REAL and documented.

    Reagan, the "trickle down" kind whose policy was to destroy unions, who had the belief that workers/laborers were nobodies (whom he supported being fired when they dared made demands of better wages...ie think Air Traffic Controllers) and believed enriching the top guys was sound policy.
    Reagan, whom some say, "named names" during the McCarthy years.

    What the hell is wrong with people???


    Jjc2008 (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    When Reagan labeled the Contras as equivalent George Washington and the boys I wanted to jump through the TV set.

    That was topped years later when some GOP members of Congress wanted to put his mug on the dime.

    Imagine replacing the likeness of our greatest President with that of the destructor.


    Sadly it persists (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    I cannot believe how the press is allowed to continue these blatant lies.  My nephews who were kids in the 80s adored Reagan because all they ever heard was how "he brought down the evil Soviets.."

    So many people choose ignorance over knowledge.


    DId you notice ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    Kroft gave him an easy out, by asking whether he planned "to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops," when the torture policy does not primarly involve actions of "U.S. troops" but rather of other gov't employees.  Obama did not take advantage of the oppty to obfuscate or evade, but instead answered the question that should have been asked, by addressing what "we," that is, "America," should do or not do.

    As I noted in the last thread (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    W. says that we don't torture too. Let's get to the nuts and bolts (rendition, waterboarding, etc).

    Words can be used in different ways (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    When Bush said "We don't torture," he was making a statement of "fact," albeit a false one.  That is, he was lying.  Obama is not making a factual claim.  In context, it is apparent (to me, at least) that he is stating a moral principle that he (says he) plans to implement by changing U.S. policy and practices.  Or perhaps you are just saying that that could be a lie also.  Yes, it could be.

    My guess/hope is that it will become true (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:57:47 PM EST
    next January. I don't not believe it is true now.

    I think Obama was pretty unequivocal (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:15:29 PM EST
    Obama was unequivocal about what exactly? (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:26:04 PM EST
    That torture wont happen with him as president. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Thanin on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58:55 PM EST
    Obama said "America doesn't torture"... (none / 0) (#32)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST
    That wasn't an unequivocal statement. It was 'open to interpretation' and, imo, deliberately worded to obscure the fact that the Bush Administration does torture.

    Of course, by their own definition and declaration, the Bush Administration doesn't classify 'enhanced interrogation' as torture.

    So, my question is this: are there any 'enhanced interrogation' practices that Obama also doesn't classify as torture?


    This was pretty unequivocal: (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:01:14 AM EST
    "And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture."

    I can understand your worry, pols fail voters all the time.  But this stuff just feels like a WORM to me... but having said that, if the end result of all this focus on what he really meant leads him to clarify and be even more openly anti torture, then its a win/win.


    What bothers (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:06:26 AM EST
    me and Foxhole and others is that there are about a million ways he could have clearly said that he will root out the torture used by all parts of the U.S. government, including the CIA, and make sure they're never used again.

    But he chose instead to say something ambiguous, using Bush's exact words.

    He very obviously had this answer prepared and ready to go, and it's hard to believe he didn't have the exact phrasing he would use about torture worked out in advance.

    We'll see in January, I guess, but this is not at all encouraging.


    Watch the video (none / 0) (#53)
    by ai002h on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    if you havent already. Its pretty obvious what he meant. The guy has been beating Bush over the head for 2 years on stuff like torture, so what makes you guys think that he would suddenly imply that America doesnt torture?? Its pretty easy to see he meant that America shouldn't stand for torture.

    One thing you get from the interview is a sense that this is a guy who knows people were paying attention to the promises he was making on the campaign trail, so for him to do a 180 and parrot Bush on torture is completely idiotic, even from a cynically political viewpoint. I have a hard time seeing any objective person seeing that interpretation of this interview.


    Two words: FISA Vote (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    I have a hard time seeing any objective person trusting what Obama says unless he's emphatic and utterly unquivocal and repeats it at least three times in the same sentence.  And even then, it makes no sense at all to believe it more than, say, 65 percent.

    "Kroft gave him an easy out" (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:37:21 AM EST
    when he didn't ask Obama these follow-up questions:

    #1) President-elect Obama, you said "America doesn't torture", how do you define torture?

    #2) Also, when you said "America doesn't torture", do you mean that America hasn't tortured in the past under Bush, or that we're not doing it at present? Or are you ignoring the past and present, and saying that we should heed our higher angels and not torture in the future?

    #3) President-elect Obama, you said "I'm gonna make sure torture doesn't happen", what specific forms of torture are you planning to prevent?


    I liked most of it. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by rooge04 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    I didn't like his iteration AGAIN about what great ideas all different sides have. How he invoked Reagan AGAIN and while I liked the liberal ideas he was talking about, he was acting as though they were free of ideology.  I hate that unity schtick nonsense.

    Whether we like it or not (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:42:39 PM EST
    Reagan is loved by a large portion of America.  Even if the reasons he is loved are misplaced that doesn't change the fact that he is beloved.  

    I think there is nothing wrong with that sort of comment because it doesn't tie Obama to any specific point but gives him the air of being respectful to the other side.


    So we should respect the notion (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    that most of American was duped by lies?  That much of American admires and loves a man who supported some of the worst despots of the world, whose administration trained thugs and dictators and stood by while the thugs they trained murdered and disappeared thousands and thousands of indigenous natives who were fighting the right to a decent life?

    Why do liberals justify the admiration/worship of one of the worst presidents ever?


    Reagan (none / 0) (#17)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:55:10 PM EST
    Since President Reagan's name has been mentioned, watch how a life long Democrat [roasts] him. Pretty good natured fun!

    That was funny! Thanks for sharing that link. (none / 0) (#46)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:54 AM EST
    Confidence and intelligence (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:56:37 PM EST
    What a glorious difference from the aw shucks stuff we have had to endure...

    No good (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:19:06 AM EST
    without the bad...Marc Ambinder reports:

    On Friday, after he was announced as an agency review team member for Barack Obama,
    John O. Brennan submitted his resignation from INSA, an intelligence community and industry think tank; he had been the group's chairman since 2007.

    An associate of Brennan's said that he has also stepped down -- perhaps temporarily -- from his position as CEO of the The Analysis Corporation (TAC), a national security and counterterrorism contractor.

    Transition rules prohibit agency review team members from drawing salaries on the side or working for non-profits engaged in their subject areas; Brennan's decision to accept an invitation suggests a willingness to work for the Obama administration after the transition ends.

    Fun fact...Brennan invited George Tenet to join his Analysis Corp. advisory board.  Ship of fools.

    We Won't "Torture" (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by BDB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:49:32 AM EST
    But will we use "enhanced interrogation" techniques?  

    And yes I'm parsing, but that's because everyone who is for torture parses, too.  Most don't say they're for torture, they're for enhanced interrogation techniques.  Heck, Bush has said we don't torture (as others have noted).

    As I said in the other thread, I'll wait until he actually stops torture or any of its euphemisms before I celebrate.

    Overall, Obama gets a high score from me tonight, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:43:38 AM EST
    because he was able to establish the appropriate tenor during the interview and exhibited characteristics people like to see in their president. He came across as forthright about the difficult times we face as a nation, but he didn't appear intimidated by the tasks set before him (courage). In contrast, he appeared confident and instilled the idea that he might not have all the answers (humility), but would keep trying different approaches (perseverance) until he found the right solutions to the complex problems the nation faces.

    I'm not referring to the specifics of each issue, but more about the impression he gave to the nation (average folks). For some people, this was their first chance to see Obama (up close) in an extended interview situation, and for that group, it was a "first impression" moment, not as a candidate, but as the newly-elected president.

    Within that context, I thought Obama appeared poised, intelligent, self-composed, and possessed the ability to cause people to have confidence in him.

    And, on a lighter note, it was such a relief to see a poised president-elect, who could articulate full sentences with correct grammar and use proper syntax. And, it was especially reassuring to learn that our president-elect actually reads, not MAD magazine, but real books on substantive topics.

    I'm being a bit facetious, but in all sincerity, it really was reassuring to know that we will have a president who values intellectual matters, can project confidence while facing challenging circumstances, and seems to have the capacity to use a systematic approach to problem-solving.

    Where are the props for Michelle? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:02:22 AM EST
    She was the high point of the interview, imo. Poised, relaxed, humorous, feisty, unaffected and straightforward in her answers.

    When Kroft started asking Obama (the President-elect, mind you) about COLLEGE FOOTBALL, Michelle, the First Lady-elect, just leaned back and, with a wave of her hand, said: "Go ahead, don't mind me". I was so relieved that she didn't feign interest in the guy-on-guy sports trivia.


    FA, big oversight on my part, but primarily I just (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:40:40 AM EST
    got tired of typing. ;-) Michelle was great! She's smart, energetic, and quite frankly, seems as though she'd be lots of fun to hang out with.

    I also like the fact that she's straightforward, b/c with people like that you know where you stand.

    I think that they have an interesting relationship. Michelle can be very protective of Barack if others harshly criticize him, but she's not at all reluctant to share her opinions, even though they run counter to Barack's sometimes. I can appreciate that!

    Personally, I think that I'd like her better than BO. I can also appreciate her dedication to her children and raising them according to her and Barack's standards. They both seem to really enjoy their children.

    I have one son, and I can definitely relate to that! I think he's the greatest! And I tell him often!


    The interview went well for Barack and Michelle. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BlueDevil on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:08:23 AM EST
    Barack was able to project his intelligence and self-assurance, while balancing those qualities with a touch of wit. I liked it when he told Steve K. that he thought that Kroft needed some mother-in-law tips from him.

    People are saying that we'll miss Bush, but I think they're in serious need of therapy or rehabilitation. Personally, I'm thrilled that we'll have a president who can put together a series of words to make an intelligible sentence.

    Michelle was poised and charming but seems cautious about discussing her professional self. That might emerge later after they're settled into the White House. All in all, a good impression given by both.

    Miss Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:39:46 AM EST
    What people are saying we'll miss Bush?  The guy's got historically low approval ratings, and everybody's sick of his act anyway.  Who have you heard/read saying that?

    Comedians (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CST on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    He was an awefully easy target :)

    But on the other hand.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by mountainaires on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    Obama,June 2007:

    "While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future.

    A month ago, the NYT's editorial board scoffed at the Bush administration's efforts to keep Gitmo detainees from being released as merely a way to avoid bad press and not to keep dangerous people from killing Americans. Suddenly, the New York Times discovers that the American system does allow for indefinite detention to protect society from dangerous individuals without full-blown criminal trials -- as with the criminally insane.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12sun2.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=indefinite+detention& ;st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Now supporters of Obama who have criticized the Bush administration's position on indefinite detention have begun rethinking that policy as well:

    As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama sketched the broad outlines of a plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba: try detainees in American courts and reject the Bush administration's military commission system.

    Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo's detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?

    That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

    "You can't be a purist and say there's never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone," said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15gitmo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&oref= slogin

    I scanned the transcript quickly (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    it was mostly good stuff.

    As long as Obama doesn't call (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:49:00 AM EST
    the Metro airport "Regan International Airport" he will be okay with most Dems in Washington.

    When Obama said "we dont torture" (none / 0) (#52)
    by ai002h on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    I thought it was pretty self-evident what he meant but it seems to many here it wasn't. Do some of you honestly believe that he's echoing Bush and claiming that we dont torture?? Do you honstly think Obama, after railing against Bush for 2 years on issues like torture, he would suddenly become a Bush defender and claim that we dont torture?? I mean to have that interpretation you would really need to be looking for it. If you watch the interview instead of reading the transcript I think its much easier to see what he really meant. IMO its beyond obvious, but thats just me

    I agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    It is very clear what he meant.  Those arguing otherwise are suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    I watched the interview.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    As for what Obama means, can you tell us this: what past, or present, methods of "enhanced interrogation" does Obama define as torture?

    If you can't answer that question definitively, you also don't know what Obama really meant.

    I want to know the answer because: Obama's real meaning will have real consequences for detainees and the Bush Administration operatives who contrived and endorsed past and present torture policy.