Our Romantic President

Props to President Obama for taking Michelle out on a romantic date to New York last night.

It was exciting not just for the Obamas, but for the New Yorkers who got to view them, the restaurant chef and staff who served them, the diners in the restaurant who applauded as they left, the actors in the Broadway show they attended --- and the one that struck me the most, the surprised guy sitting next to Obama at the play. [More...]

"I couldn't think for the first 10 minutes of the show because the president was sitting right to me," said seatmate Lloyd Lederkramer.

The Obamas also got a standing ovation from the audience at the show.

I think it's great we have such a popular president and first lady -- it's been a very long time. (And to the grinchy Republicans out there who are griping about cost, the Obamas paid for their show tickets and dinner. Who paid all those times Bush flew to his ranch in Crawford? Do you think Bush would have told America he was foregoing his vacation to Crawford because GM was filing for bankruptcy? )

< Sotomayor Must Answer Questions On Judicial Issues | What Would "Neutral" Judging Look Like In Ricci? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I liked this: (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    Meryl Streep sat a few rows in front of the Obamas, said Mr. Johnson, 52. "No one seemed to notice," he said

    Very funny Mr. Johnson (none / 0) (#5)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun May 31, 2009 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    "No one seemed to notice" - except of course Mr. Johnson. Lol. But no one else noticed Streep because Mr. Johnson absolutely knew who everyone else was noticing. Funny stuff.

    He said "seemed to notice"... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Thanin on Sun May 31, 2009 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    thats not a claim of absolute knowledge.

    Just sayin


    He's popular, yes (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    But not for much longer.  I guess he should enjoy it while he can.  Meanwhile, he has chosen to side with Wall Street crooks and Health Care CEO's and military thugs with no imagination and to screw working people.  Is this worthy of celebrating or applauding?


    But Americans are addicted to appearances and surfaces, so I guess we have to give a guy on a date a standing O.

    Fiddle fiddle, burn burn.

    You Fogot to Mention (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:58:35 AM EST
    That he pals around with anti-abortion terrorists and clinic bombers.

    The Obamas may have paid for (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    the show tickets and their dinner, but what did it cost to fly them there, for the extra security at each point along the way?  Does the federal government reimburse the City of New York for the extra costs they incurred?

    On the other hand, I suppose it is nice to know he can keep some campaign promises - but it's funny how he can remember the ones he made to his wife, but when asked by someone in the gay community about the promises he had made to them, he had to laugh and ask "which one?" an make a big joke about it.  Kind of like he referred to single-payer advocates at a town hall as "the little single-payer folks."  Oh, Barack - you just so funny!

    I'd be more impressed if he had sprung for the entire cost of taking Michelle out - if they were looking to be just a normal couple out for some together time, he ought to have done it the way the rest of us normal people do it: out of our own pockets.

    ok then (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by progrocks on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    the trip, with the amount of security required for every occasion that he leaves the house, is more than he makes a year in the job.  

    new rule for presidents, must spend 24/7 at home because it costs too much.  right?? is that what you want??  Should he have hoped on a southwest flight from baltimore?  really, what are your expectations, besides hating on a husband and wife having a night out without the kids?


    I'm not saying he should stay home, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2009 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    but I am suggesting that he consider paying for his clearly personal trips - does your employer pick up the tab for you when you want to go out?  Do your neighbors chip in to send you out on the town?

    Last I checked, we were in something of an economic crisis, millions have lost jobs, cities and states are scrambling to meet budgets and having to cut services in order to do so - so pardon me if I find his date night on the taxpayers a little on the extravagant side - even with him paying for the theatre tickets and dinner.


    I think you're being unreasonable (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sun May 31, 2009 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    The Presidency creates unusual security constraints.

    Yes it does, it sure does, and those (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2009 at 07:55:06 PM EST
    constraints are expensive, and place a burden on the city and state that must provide them.  I imagine it places a burden on those who lose business because the streets around them are closed.  It's probably difficult for those trying to get to work or home on public transportation that has been re-routed for the occasion.

    I could certainly see the Obamas taking time out for dinner and a show at the end of a trip conducting government business of some kind, but I think there's something sort of cavalier about the image of Obama ordering up the helicopter and the Gulfstream and resources of the City of New York just so he could keep a promise to his wife.


    You say that you don't want (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sun May 31, 2009 at 07:57:49 PM EST
    to confine him to the White House, but in practice your reasoning could lead only to that.

    Oh, brother. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2009 at 08:15:10 PM EST
    What I said - explicitly - is that I thought it would make more sense to combine a personal excursion with a trip being made on government business.

    I mean, for crying out loud, I try to do all my errand-running on the same day, plotting my route accordingly, so that I am not making 5 separate trips on five separate days, because it's more economical to do that.  Millions of us are making decisions like that - is Obama now immune from having to care about the economic and environmental effect of taking a separate trip to NY to have dinner and see a show?

    I don't think he should be a prisoner in the WH, but I do think he has a responsibility to be more thoughtful about how he goes about taking personal time.  I don't think that's unreasonable.


    I can pretty much promise (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    it would have cost more for Obama to fly commercial- you know after they had to kick off every passener who hadn't had an extensive background check, removed all commercial cargo, and dismantled and re-assembled the plane.

    It's a heck of a lot more than the cost (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    of the flights he took yesterday.

    6th ave shut down between the downtown restaurant and the midtown theater. More than 50 blocks. Also shut down streets between the helipad and the restaurant. It was reported over at Politico via one of his aides that 6th ave was essentially a parade route. That means the city just spent a heck of a lot of money in cops/overtime/equip/canines etc. I'm sure the overtime for the dogs was pretty hefty on it's own. The least he could have done is find a restaurant closer to the theater. There are ones that serve the same type of locally grown farm fare closer to the theater.

    Map and timeline (which doesn't include time spent at the play and the reverse trip to the helipad while the overtime clock is ticking. It takes a heck of a lot of NYPD to secure/protect areas and manage the crowds. I suspect Port Authority and the MTA were in service also as all subway stations in the vaccinity of the route etc would all have to be somewhat secure. Busses getting rerouted etc also takes extra personnel to direct riders to where to go.

    Yeah, just a simple lil' date night.


    Right on! (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by rennies on Sun May 31, 2009 at 05:49:32 PM EST
    But, of course, he's a rock star. Who cares about people trying to put food on their tables after being laid off.

    If there aren't really strict rules on how (none / 0) (#8)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    Air Force One can be used by the administrations, then some need to be put in place. I also resent the use of the plane for party fund raisers and campaigning, though.

    he has a Congressional granted expense account (none / 0) (#63)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 10:38:03 AM EST
    and moves about the country, as doe severy President, with security due to his position. Woudl you rather he go on, as he and other Presidents do, campaign contribution fundraisers about which no one ever raises these issues?

    Everyone must be kidding ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by ggb on Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    Bush flew all over the flippin' world and accomplished nothing, not to mention the BILLIONS lost, squandered, stolen (that's just with Iraq), Laura Bush made visits to the Middle East (exacly what for??), and you people are worried about one trip to another city!!  Good grief, at least Obama is WORKING for his salary and so is his wife.  Come up with a picture anyone has seen with Bush holding a piece of paper or book (even any resemblence that he contributed to any meeting!!), except for a pen when he was signing a law that was probably SCREWING the middle class.  People, worry about something that's important.  Remember, Bush spent nearly a year of his Presidency on vacation, he might as well have been absent for the other 7 years for all he acomplished.  He only destroyed world peace, trashed the education system, health care, pretty nearly wrecked the environment, but he did manage to make sure the Corporate CEO's got paid billions, so let's complain about one little trip Obama makes from from Washington to New York.      

    Must say that just maybe if (4.40 / 5) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    several million people weren't out of work, and millions of those who are working could afford to just go out to dinner, this might not be an event that would raise criticism. But, on his watch some 665,000 people a month have lost their jobs. He didn't inherit anything that actually happened after Jan 20th.

    He's a real "in your face", "doesn't effect me" kind of leader.


    So youre saying... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Thanin on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    the job losses after Jan 20 have absolutely nothing to with the economic downturn in 2008?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    Just saying he isn't doing much to turn it around.

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Thanin on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    So What Are You Doing Writing on this Blog (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 01:01:07 AM EST
    When there's so many people suffering?  You should be serving sandwiches in a soup line or pounding nails to help homeless people.  Are you lazy or what?

    Almost every economic indicator (3.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    suggests the economy is turning around- not bad for a guy whose been on the job around 5 months. Even Unemployment saw a smaller increase than it did in the previous month.  

    :) Interesting (none / 0) (#26)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    smaller increase

    Increase is the operative word in your sentence, you know. The banks are doing just fine, and the CEOs are on schedule for their hefty bonuses.

    Oh, and mortgage rates are going up. That must be the key indicator that things are getting better, eh?


    Bush was responsbile for 9/11, true? (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sun May 31, 2009 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    So romantic (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    that he brought a press plane...and the story will be on Brian Williams very special Obama reality series aired next week.

    If he wanted a romantic outing, he might have ditched the press plane....might have at least attempted to go in secret.

    I am all for presidential outings. I don't think presidents should live in prison cells called 1600 Penn Ave....but when I saw all the press, allllll the press....I knew this wasn't just a nice date.  This should be paid for by his re-election campaign, not by the taxpayers...just as another crafted cynical photo op, the Air Force I flyby near the statue of liberty, should be paid for by his re-election campaign.

    Anybody who bought that this was just a romantic date is a little naive, in my opinion.

    And I apologize to nycstray. I bought the nonsense for awhile myself.

    Mr. Obama, Camelot photo-op much?  I think the stunt will backfire, especially with the folks who are camping on vacation because they can't afford hotel rooms....while the prez blows tax dollars on a photo op.

    I will admit that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    her dress is lovely.

    They are (4.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    an absolutely beautiful couple, no doubt about it, picture perfect prince and princess.

    Well, I wouldn't go that far (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    I thought the dress was pretty. For me, the beauty of a person lies deep inside what they do for and to others.

    Glamorous? Certainly. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by EL seattle on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    Romantic?  Probably.  But the photos look similar to shots of Hollywood celebrities spending romantic evenings on the town before the release of their new movie or album or perfume or concert tour.  As long as they're wearing all the necessary clothing, it's okay with me.

    I wonder how often is the word "romantic" used in the media to describe public figures that aren't glamorous?


    question (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by progrocks on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    does the president ever go anywhere without the press following (besides camp david)?

    I do not know for sure, but my guess is no


    I thought there were agreements (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    With the press that they get to go where ever he goes.  Didn't the press get mad when he ditched them to go talk with Hillary and Senator Feinstein.


    Is her formal title former senator, Secretary of state Hillary Clinton?


    That was different (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    That was political news.  This was supposedly a "personal thing".  The press would never have gotten away with sliming the Obama's for ditching them for a "romantic evening".  The loyalists would have gone rampant.

    It was a photo op. That's all it was.


    This is funny! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by maddog on Sun May 31, 2009 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    How can the president be said to have a romantic date in another city.  I wish I had the money or the ability to do this.  My romantic dinners with my wife are around the block at a local restaurant.  In this economy I have to save money.  I guess Obama doesn't practice what he preaches.

    Stop with the Bush at Crawford, the supposed wasted billions on a war etc.  Obama was suppose to be the anti-bush, better than bush, a better talker than bush, smarter, etc., and now you compare what Bush did to Obama.  You can't have it both ways.  Obama was suppose to raise the bar not just nudge it up a little.  

    I was going to say something (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Fabian on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    superficial and possibly sexist, but decided not to.

    Every so often, I think "Michelle Obama = Princess Di".  Just in terms of media attention and public reaction, not on any other level.  The way people act and react to her is an interesting phenomena.

    This is one of those times.


    Heh (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    I think Imelda.

    I like Di better. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Sun May 31, 2009 at 03:51:21 PM EST

    I was a fan of Di's work and causes, but I never got into the whole barbie doll aspect of dressing for public appearances.  I appreciate fashion (from a theoretical POV) and women who are fortunate to be able to wear clothes well.  I just don't get into "What is so-and-so wearing today?"  or as Ani Difranco puts it sarcastically.

    "...what I happen to be wearing the day someone takes my picture is my new statement for all of womankind."

    It's bizarre how much importance people can place on clothes, shoes, hair and make up.


    I think Inspector Gadget was referring to (3.66 / 3) (#44)
    by allimom99 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    Mrs. Obama's world view as well as the obsession with clothes. Anyone that wears $500 sneakers to work at a food bank and not see the irony is right up there with Mrs. Marcos.

    Diana went out and did her charity work IN SPITE of her position, not because of it. We got the feeling that she genuinely cared about the people she reached out to. With Michelle Obama, it's more about, "what's in it for ME?" Definitely more Imelda.


    So... (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Thanin on Sun May 31, 2009 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    are you just able to mind read or do you have actual factual proof that Michelle has an "whats in it for me" intent?

    Just an opinion I've formed watching them (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by allimom99 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    over the last couple of years, and some gotten from friends in Chicago going back farther. Is it now not allowed to form one's own opinion based on observations? I'm sure you've done the same; for example, though you don't know me AT ALL, you have likely already decided what you think, and it's probably wrong.

    I'd be very happy to be proven wrong about my impressions of both the Obamas, so let me know when he starts KEEPING his promises, and when she actually starts spending some time with those military families she claims to be so devoted to.


    Nothing wrong with forming opinions... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 02:40:51 AM EST
    and nothing wrong with acknowledging that opinions, especially when you dont know the other person personally, could be quite wrong, as you seem to have done here.

    And no I dont think Ive seen your posts enough to form an opinion about you.


    Ridiculous comment (none / 0) (#62)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    reinforcing the double standards that always seem to apply to Democratic Presidents.  Republicans can do whatever the Hell they want but Democracts are "better" and therefore subject to criticism no matter what they do.

    Who is trying to have it both ways?


    They saw an excellent play (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    "Joe Turner's Come and Gone" is an amazing piece of theater. Of course, any play by the late, great August Wilson is an excellent play. If you like live theater and you ever get a chance to see one of Wilson's plays,whether in NYC or closer to home, do it.

    There are so many things I do not like about the decisions Obama is making. His policy decisions infuriate me. But this? This is nothing to get all het up about. The demands and the limits that are faced by whoever lives in the WH are huge. Does anyone honestly think that the Obamas can have a night out that doesn't cost taxpayer money? He's the President of the United States. Their lives are not like yours and mine. They can't even go out to dinner without the press. And, of course the press was there. The press is always there.

    And, for those concerned about the cost,  they didn't take Air Force 1. The opted for a much cheaper to operate Gulfstream 5.

    And two other planes, AND a helicopter. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by allimom99 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 06:01:36 PM EST
    I don't really care about the outing, except that it looks pretty tone-deaf, given what the rest of the citizenry is coping with. What I DO want to know is, what is it this was meant to deflect our attention from? This is classic Obama - "move along, nothing to see here - oh, LOOK! The KEWL kidz are out for a night on the town!"

    Keep your eyes open this week!


    I Was One of the Lucky Ones (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by bob h on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    at the play, though I did not get to see them as I was seated directly above in the mezzanine.  But the riotous welcome they got should disabuse them of any doubts that they are loved and treasured.

    They probably realize that they have to be very careful about appearing in public because it is difficult to control crowds who want a piece of him, even jaded New Yorkers.

    Interestingly, there was a cop quoted (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scribe on Sun May 31, 2009 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    on an NY media outlet, to the effect that their issues were almost purely crowd control and "not a protester among them".

    When was the last time Bushie was able to go anywhere without a protester?

    And the fellow diners played it cool, too.

    I think that says more... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 09:27:44 AM EST
    about protestors than it does Obama...there is still plenty to get worked up about, even if Big Brother's face is prettier and words more eloquent.

    Excellent taste in theatre (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun May 31, 2009 at 04:23:47 PM EST

    Green with envy (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Slado on Sun May 31, 2009 at 04:37:55 PM EST
    They paid a couple hundred bucks for tickets and dinner but we should disregard the thousands spent on jet fuel, security etc...

    How green was this trip?  Obam and Co. are ready to ruin the energy and car industry but lets burn a couple thousand gallons of jet fuel so Obama can see a play in NYC instead of waiting for the D.C. troupe to do their version.

    Who cares who paid for the tickets?

    So an every man environmentalist president jet sets up to NYC for a play but I'm supposed to put in new lightbulbs, give time and money to the poor and buy a hybrid.

    Got it.  

    Nevermind they probably took the helicopter (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Sun May 31, 2009 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    I'm sure it's fuel efficient

    Just googled it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Slado on Sun May 31, 2009 at 04:49:05 PM EST
    Marine One burns about 166gallons of fuel per hour.

    Figure about 1 hour each way and that's 332 gallons of AVgas so obama could see a play in NYC.  

    I'll remember that when I'm deciding between a gas guzzling Ford or a hybrid from a government owned car manufacurer.

    Hypocrisy is best served cold.


    yeah lets not worry about the cost... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Slado on Sun May 31, 2009 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    $24,000 from Uncle Sam

    They took two helicopter and a jet.   Nice


    ruin the energy and car industry? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun May 31, 2009 at 05:05:40 PM EST

    Never mind the past eight years, or the lightbulbs.

    You aren't seeing this clearly because all the the duct tape you bought blocks your vision, slado.


    Hypicorisy is hypocrisy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Sun May 31, 2009 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    Republicans aren't the ones "saving the planet".

    Only the limoseane (gulfstreem in this case) liberals are.


    Oh. My apologies, then. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 07:52:41 AM EST
    I didn't realize that you were so down on republicans for wrecking the planet.

    And I agree with you that anyone working to save the planet and fix the mess and destruction left behind by eight years of republican brain dead idiocy so that your children and grandchildren will have a healthy planet to live on deserves an all expense paid date with his wife on your tab, slado.


    I'm happy he takes his wife out (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Lora on Sun May 31, 2009 at 08:12:17 PM EST
    I'd be a lot happier if he:

    would stop bombing civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan

    would give back the executive powers Bush stole

    would reject military tribunals

    would reject illegal wiretappping

    in general make good on those promises he used to garner our support and get himself elected.

    The taxpayers got a bargain (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by ding7777 on Sun May 31, 2009 at 10:14:47 PM EST
    Obama could have bought a "ranch" and had the taxpayer foot the bill for "security" improvements... like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, BushW

    The thing to do (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    and what I recall some past presidents have done is to calculate the costs of personal trips, as if they weren't president and then pay that.  It seems reasonable, as this was a personal promise (and if I found out that my spouse made me a promise that he kept by not paying a cent for it, well, it wouldn't seem too "romantic" to me:-).  

    The difference owing to security costs for safeguarding our head of state is paid by us.

    And the media ought to pay for their own press plane.

    Blech (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    It's not romantic when it becomes a photo-op for the world to see.

    Everything is about image.

    And My SSDI Barely Allows for Bi-Annual Movies (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by lfeld on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 02:16:07 AM EST
    Did the economy get stimulated by the costs of Air Force One and all the Security and Limos, etc being used for O's personal amusement?  Maybe like with his money grub tour of Nevada and California he can stop at a military base for 20 minutes and pretend it was about 'the troops' and not splurging at formerly taxpayers, now out of work, expense.  Of course he's the same guy who politiked on 'Creating' 5 million  new jobs, till, a week after election, he thought it better to 'SAVE or create' 5 million jobs.  He's a peach?

    I know I'm rambling (2.00 / 0) (#61)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    and not making much sense but I'm just really tired of the Obama worship, especially for Donna Reed throwback SAHM Michelle.

    I also... (none / 0) (#60)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 10:07:49 AM EST
    ...find it hard to believe that those New Yorkers were so starry-eyed. New Yorkers are very used to seeing celebrities (real celebrities, not politicians) in public -- I have never failed to spot someone famous every time I've visited NYC and it's exciting for me but the natives don't even seem to notice! And politicians, much though they would like to pretend otherwise, just aren't in the same constellation as Hollywood or even TV celebs.

    And why is it so great to have a popular president? To make it easier for him to do things? What if those are bad things?

    Let's not forget how popular Dubya was, at first. He and Laura would have gotten standing ovations, too, during his 90-percent or whatever it was reign. Same with his Daddy. (Bill Clinton, by contrast, left office with the highest approval ratings in history and is still immensely popular.)

    Having a "popular" president is so great (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by angie on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    because we aren't allowed to notice that we still don't have one who keeps his promises.

    Oh he'd keep his promises (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    only if he could remember what they were :P

    At this point in his disastrous Presidency W (none / 0) (#64)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    was not at all popular.