home

The White House Correspondents' Dinner

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat May 09, 2009 at 05:44:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Arrivals are going on now at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. You can watch at C-Span or follow the tweets at #nerdprom and #WHCD.

Bon Jovi and Sting are there. From the screaming in the background, you'd think it's 1964 and the Beatles just arrived.

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Sunday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The White House Correspondents' Dinner | 77 comments (77 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Colbert AWOL (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kidneystones on Sat May 09, 2009 at 07:07:07 PM EST
    Literally just came from a Patrick Cockburn piece in the Independent:
    I had gone to Herat because last Monday US aircraft had attacked several villages in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, which is immediately to the south of Herat. The local governor and surviving villagers said that more than 120 civilians had been killed. The US military denied that anything like that number had died and, if they had, it was the Taliban who had done it by hurling grenades into houses.

    Not one US combat brigade has been withdrawn from Iraq. Nancy Pelosi is now asking people to believe that she was not informed that the US was water-boarding folks despite evidence that confirms her senior advisors were briefed. There is no sign that the US is withdrawing from either Afghanistan or Iraq. The war in Pakistan is escalating. Dems are going to own the WOT or end it, changes the name of the enterprise might mean a bunch to folks justifying the killings, but likely doesn't feel a whole lot different to those on the receiving end of US air-strikes.

    Lost in Translation (none / 0) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    Obama had always said that he would end the war in Iraq responsibly and escalate the war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) so that the Al Qaeda and Taliban menace was reduced to a level that it could not hurt the United States anymore. Obama is doing exactly what he promised. He had also said that he was not against all wars but only against "dumb wars".
    What part of it did you not understand?
    Look at videos of the Taliban terrorising women in the Swat region (did you see the public flogging of a teenage girl who was charged with adultery?) and Taliban's attempt to bring the whole of Pakistan under Shariat rule before you vent on blogs.

    Parent
    Losing While Celebrities and Lick-Spittles Clap (none / 0) (#69)
    by kidneystones on Sun May 10, 2009 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    I'll assume by your silence that both you and Donald have no response to the first point I raised: that the WH press corps promulgates the ruling party line, parroting exactly the same Bush talking points are here, only now these talking points supposedly assume a new validity because they're from a 'different' source.

    My point is that the efficacy of these policies is not being questioned because you and the other folks invested in believing Dems 'do not torture' have your eyes tightly shut to fact. Barack Obama did not invent many of the problems we all face together.

    The surge worked and the better policy comes in the case of Iraq, and of energy, btw, from McCain. Pakistan is falling apart and bombing civilians, as McCain did forty years ago is not going to make anyone love America and democracy more. Bombing civilians didn't work in Viet Nam, then, and US air-strikes on civilians won't work now.

    Parent

    Nobody is invested in anything (none / 0) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 07:40:35 PM EST
    We are just asking you to be patient and be open minded.
    The Obama administration is involved in a sophisticated strategy to woo the Muslim world while attempting to dismantle terror networks that are based there. He is working with elected leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, will work towards negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, will also attempt to directly take his case to people in the Middle-East (in Egypt and elsewhere). Will his strategy work? We will have to wait and see. However, not doing anything will not just deliver Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but Pakistan also. You do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation. I would like to see you make some suggestions regarding what should be done in your view instead of just venting anger.

    Parent
    Press Asks Questions Rather than Clapping (none / 0) (#72)
    by kidneystones on Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    Your reading skills evidently need some work. I suggest that the press start questioning the wisdom of escalating air attacks in Pakistan that kill civilians. I suggest Dems stop inhaling 'we are noble and Republicans eat babies' pap and recognize that the US is still loathed in many parts of the ME and Central Asia. I suggest that the WH press corps starts asking serious questions of this administration rather than yukking it up and passing the blame back on to the previous administration. There will almost certainly be a major escalation of the conflict within the next year, involving Iran, unless Dems wake up to the fact that Israel is not going to allow Iran to possess nukes. Invading Iraq was a really, really bad idea and an idea that many Dems supported. The new president is bent on starting his very own 'Iraq' war, only in an even harder to manage theatre. You seem to think he's making a wise choice. I disagree.

    Parent
    You are curiously silent (none / 0) (#73)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    about how the Taliban and Al Qaeda has started losing its support in Pakistan through its excesses. Why is that? Is it because it will undercut the points you are trying to make?
    Iran is a work in progress for the Obama administration, we will have to wait and see what unfolds there. I am hopeful about the Obama administration because it shows flexibility and pragmatism while dealing with problems, unlike the previous administration which was motivated by ideology.

    Parent
    Staying on Topic (none / 0) (#75)
    by kidneystones on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:04:47 PM EST
    My principal point is about the failure of the press and the absence of any cogent critique or questioning of this administration and its policies, a failure I see as self-congratulatory myopia. I supported this claim by drawing attention to the lack of interest the press and many Dems display in the plight of military families forced to live with the consequences of the broken promise to return one combat brigade per month until all the troops are home starting with the first month in office. I linked in my initial post to an Independent article entitled: 'The Story that Isn't a Story in the US', about Dem air-strikes in Pakistan.

    To further buttress my claim of press bias and Dem myopia I cited the astonishing claims by senior Dems, like Pelosi, that they had no idea what Bush was doing over a period of years, when it was abundantly clear to anyone capable of reading a newspaper that torture, assassination, and rendition were the stated US policies post-9/11.

    I'd welcome an honest debate on any number of questions. Your assertions that the Taliban and Al Quaida are 'losing support' are offered up without any supporting evidence. I'm actually willing to believe that in some areas one or the other, or even both, are losing support on some issues.

    The general response on this thread and Donald from Hawaii's bombastic dismissal of questions about Dem complicity in US war-crimes is pretty much what I've come to expect. I wouldn't count on anything improving in Pakistan or Afghanistan until somebody shows up with bags of cash and a list of make work projects. In the meantime, I stand by my claim that Dem air-strikes on civilians aren't going to win the 'hearts and minds' of the locals. The level of engagement required to address the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, IMHO, make Iraq look like a 'cakewalk'. I'd encourage you to re-think the wisdom of sending bombs.

    Parent

    Bags of cash (none / 0) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:18:17 PM EST
    and work projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan are on its way. You must not be following the [news].
    However, if you just donate bags of cash without attempting to dismantle the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that cash will fall into the hand of extremists to finance terror operations.

    Parent
    Tens of thousands of troops (none / 0) (#77)
    by kidneystones on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    At the very least, might provided the security and stability to 'dismantle' a deeply-rooted power structure based on kin, ethnicity, and religion. The Karzai government supports rape within marriage and these folks are ostensibly 'allies'.

    The US embraced a comprehensive strategy of bribes, solid intelligence, and political propaganda to achieve impressive successes in Iraq in 2008. Dems, particularly, have refused to acknowledge the gains Bush made during this time for reasons which aren't worth going into now.

    You continue to avoid the principle critique I'm making: the press is as compliant under the new administration as it was under the old, Dems are much more concerned in portraying themselves as more noble and moral than Republicans than in examining the possibility that they are complicit in many of the worst excesses of the previous eight years and are now making new mistakes of their own.

    I'll repeat: Pakistan is not Iraq, Iraq is not Afghanistan, and attacking civilian targets inside Pakistan is not going to improve the security of anyone.

    Parent

    You refuse to see reality (none / 0) (#78)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 11, 2009 at 04:54:21 AM EST
    Irrespective of what happened during the Bush years, the reality is that Democrats are going to be held responsible for what happens in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq now, irrespective of how the US military engages in these countries. If Pakistan and Afghanistan fall to the Taliban and Afghanistan, only the Dems will be blamed. I do not care who is portraying whom as noble and moral, these are games that I am not interested in. There is a real problem in Pakistan and Afghanistan that you are refusing to acknowledge, this is very clear. Obama, Gates and others have acknowledged many times that Pakistan and Afghanistan are bigger challenges than Iraq, they and others in the administration are working to overcome these challenges.

    Parent
    In the end (none / 0) (#79)
    by kidneystones on Mon May 11, 2009 at 08:08:28 AM EST
    this is about you, isn't it. You insist that bombing Pakistani civilians will produce the desired results, rather than recognize the opposite may well be the result.

    The Independent questions why the US press refuses to explain to the American people that US air-strikes in Pakistan are killing civilians.

    The reality is that many of us are not interested in seeing America get sucked deeper into wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    No country has succeeded in any military occupation of the region. Russia's failure in Afghanistan is well-documented. However, I don't expect this fact will dent your faith in American exceptionalism.

    Your belief that America possesses the ability to bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan into submission speaks volumes.

    Thanks for being so clear.

    Parent

    Targetting of terrorists (none / 0) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 11, 2009 at 09:03:24 PM EST
    by US military drones is not "bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan into submission" and not indulging in "military occupation of the region".
    Please stop resorting to propaganda.

    Parent
    The Press should cover (none / 0) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 09:47:16 PM EST
    atrocities that Taliban and Al Qaeda are committing in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as ask tough questions about the effect of air attacks that kill civilians. That would be the right kind of coverage.
    [link]
    [link]


    Parent
    War in Pakistan (none / 0) (#67)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    [This] is what it is about.

    Parent
    Moral hobby horse? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    [Guardian]
    What is moral about supporting public flogging of women?

    "The army launched a full-scale operation on Thursday, following the collapse of a fragile peace deal that saw militants fanning out of their Swat stronghold into neighbouring districts such as Buner and Dir. It was a fight "for the survival of the country", the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said on Saturday. The offensive came as President Asif Ali Zardari visited the United States to reassure a nervous Obama administration that Pakistan was committed to fighting militancy.

    The operation has also enjoyed an unusual level of support at home, even from conservative forces previously reluctant to criticise the Taliban.

    A conference of religious clerics in Rawalpindi endorsed the military campaign as a "jihad against the enemies of Islam".

    Turning points in public opinion included the release of a video showing a Taliban fighter flogging a teenage woman, and a declaration by Sufi Muhammad, a senior pro-Taliban cleric, that democracy was an "infidel" concept."


    Parent

    Parallel (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sat May 09, 2009 at 07:11:33 PM EST
    Another parallel to 1964 is the sight of one segment of the population whooping it up while another segment is mired in an unpopular and unending war.

    WASHINGTON -- The top American general in Iraq said Friday that one-fifth of American combat troops would stay behind in Iraqi cities even after the June 30 deadline that the United States and Iraq had set for the departure.

    Families of service folks as political fodder (none / 0) (#3)
    by kidneystones on Sat May 09, 2009 at 07:38:19 PM EST
    Agreed. Interest in the plight of military families forced to bear the weight of the broken 'combat brigade' promise is non-existent. The press is fully in the tank for the continuation of the war. Why? Let's just say that asking difficult questions of this administration isn't the best way to get a job as newspapers go down the drain.

    70 or 80 photographs... bore out the villagers' story: there were craters everywhere; the villages had been plastered with bombs; bodies had been torn to shreds by the blasts; there were mass graves; there were no signs of damage from bullets, rockets or grenades.

    Air-strikes aren't what Dem champagne-sippers want to hear about as they squeal with delight at their awesomeness.

    Parent

    Yeh, I'm not watching them (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    whooping it up, after spending all day on email with my colleagues, trying to figure out how we're going to work the furloughs ordered for the next two years by our governor -- while not cutting back at all on the education for which our students will pay even more next year.

    And almost all state employees, including a lot of those students and their parents, will be making at least five percent less, between the furloughs and the raises that were due a year ago but deferred 'til next month.  They're gone now, too.

    I remember Obama saying that the stimulus bills would ensure that no harm would come to education, that no teachers would be laid off.  Guess that didn't include furloughing teachers.

    University of Washington (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    Prez Emmert just pushed for and got 14% per year tuition increases for the next two years.  He claims it will all be paid for by Hope Scholarship/Tax credits and increased Pell Grants. Phooey.  

    Profs didn't get raises this year, but no pay cuts or furloughs, because apparently UW has the best profs evuh and they can't risk losing them. Of course, up to 1000 classified staff will lose their jobs. Come to UW.  It's a nice place to work if you have a PhD, but not if you're student or classified staff.

    Parent

    Skip the Ph.D. Be a prison guard (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:21:23 PM EST
    or work for university hospitals.  No layoffs or furloughs for prison guards or medicos.  

    The rest of us will share the pain -- well, not really.  The rest of state workers are unionized, and they've gotten raises every year, including this one.

    Only the faculty are banned, by law, from collective bargaining.  So we've had no raises for two years, finally were to get this year's at the end of the year, but it has been cancelled -- while we are to have even higher (and it's VERY high now) cuts for contributing to health insurance, plus no raises for the next two years, either.

    With UW faculty midway through five years of no raises, and starting below the national norms before that, I think you and many states will see a lot of former Wisconsinites in your classrooms.

    Parent

    Nope, only group denied it by law (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sun May 10, 2009 at 07:13:47 AM EST
    in Wisconsin.  Used to deny it to DAs, too, but they finally got the right a few years ago.

    It's a legacy in Wisconsin of the McCarthy era, I'm told -- at least, the legislators' hatred of UW faculty.  What DAs did to deserve being denied their rights in the so-called "progressive" state, who knows.  

    As the granddaughter of a Teamster, I really resent being denied the right to unionize.  And the result?  UW faculty lack many benefits basic at other states' campuses and even at our own campuses for other workers.  And the faculty pay levels are not competitive with their peers at most campuses, except at Madison -- the only campus where the faculty are against our fight for collective bargaining rights.  Long story.

    Parent

    Sorry to hear what is going on :( (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:30:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Not cheering tonight in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:48:07 PM EST
    where our fast-declining taxes (the Milwaukee area has lost jobs faster in the last year than all but three other major cities in the U.S.) are building them in Mexico with bailout money for Chrysler -- while it closes plants here.

    And this in a state with two Dem Senators, a state that cinched the primaries for Obama. . . .

    From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tomorrow:

    . . . .Consider the outrage and anguish over Chrysler's decision to close its 800-employee Kenosha engine plant - as it opens a similar factory in Mexico and gets $12 billion in taxpayer help to restructure.  Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin are not only assailing the troubled automaker over the move but . . . faulting the Obama administration for allowing it to happen.

    "Given the tremendous emphasis in this administration on helping Wall Street . . . there ought to be at least equal emphasis on protecting American jobs staying in the United States," Senate Democrat Russ Feingold said.  Senate Democrat Herb Kohl . . . said Obama aides have told Wisconsin officials that "they leave those kinds of decisions to automobile management, (that) 'It's not our job to try to micro-manage everything.' "

    Kohl's response to that argument: "Not good enough. . . ."



    Parent
    I'll have to look into whether (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    bailing out WS is helping this state at all. We still seem to be getting slammed.

    Damn, another Mexico plant?!

       "Given the tremendous emphasis in this administration on helping Wall Street . . . there ought to be at least equal emphasis on protecting American jobs staying in the United States," Senate Democrat Russ Feingold said.  Senate Democrat Herb Kohl . . . said Obama aides have told Wisconsin officials that "they leave those kinds of decisions to automobile management, (that) 'It's not our job to try to micro-manage everything.' "

        Kohl's response to that argument: "Not good enough. . . ."

    Oy.

    You going to be ok?

    Parent

    Aw, thanks for asking (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:37:56 PM EST
    Yeh, I still can afford my hypertension meds, so I'll handle the stress.  And the stress for my poor students.

    It's just that I'd hoped to retire soon, with my spouse already past 65 and still working, too -- because his pension is gone, owing to mismanagement of his previous company as well as this economy.  And now I can't be his sugar mama, because I have kids to help who are laid off.  But hey, we have jobs.  We just wanted to turn them over to a younger generation by now.

    I hate what this economic mess has done to the youngest and the oldest in society, while Obama and Geithner and Summers, et. al., keep sending our ever-declining funds to the banks and the big businesses . . . and then to Mexico.

    Parent

    They purportedly don't micro manage (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by easilydistracted on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:19:35 PM EST
    yet didn't Obama can the head of GM three or four weeks ago.

    Parent
    I decided I was too tired (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:22:05 PM EST
    to try and figure out what they meant. Not computing in my brain as they also pushed the Fiat deal at the same time . . .

    Parent
    Pretty p*ssed off at Obama in Ohio, too (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:49:16 PM EST
    reading this Cleveland Plain Dealer account of the lies that the White House told.

    And yet a different lie was told to us in Wisconsin, where the local pols were promised that the plant here would stay open.  A couple of days later, Chrysler could only say, "oops" -- and said it confused Wisconsin and Michigan.

    Yeh, well, we all look alike here in the heartland, clinging to our God and our guns.  Praying to bring down a doe for food on the table.

    Parent

    In Washington (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:57:37 PM EST
    The governor promised big wage increases to state employees to get re-elected, and then re-niged soon after November.

    and FYI, when I said UW, I meant University of Washington.  I've no doubt that conditions are much worse in your neck of the woods.

    Parent

    Yeh, pols' promises at all levels (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:02:25 PM EST
    aren't worth spit.  (And yeh, I knew you meant that other UW:-).

    Parent
    Emmert should give up 1/2 of his $1 mil yr. salary (none / 0) (#25)
    by shoephone on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:00:27 PM EST
    That could fund the educations of dozens of students in 2009-2010.

    I just read that WSU raised it's tuition a whopping 30% for the next two years! Up until recently I was seriously considering going back to school. Ain't no way now.

    Parent

    That's a mis-leading headline (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:04:21 PM EST
    If you read the article, they're raising tuition 14% per year for the next 2 years, just like UW.  The interesting thing is WSU was never pushing for huge tuition hikes, but since the legislature offered (at the bequest of Emmert), they said, uh, okay.

    I went back to school several years ago at UW.  I regret it.  Stay with education systems that understand working adults.

    Yes, Emmert is way, way overpaid.  And he's been wanting these tuition hikes since 2005.  This is pure opportunism.

    Parent

    Now that BCC is BC (none / 0) (#37)
    by shoephone on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:56:57 PM EST
    I hope they start offering degrees in more than three or four areas of study. I never really considered going to UW anyway.

    Not that I could ever afford it, but Seattle University is a great school, and one with a conscience -- they don't just pay lip service on social issues.

    Parent

    If you do go to BC (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:12:14 AM EST
    and plan on entering a science curriculum let me know.  I can highly recommend several teachers.

    Yes, I hope they offer several degrees.  I know Emmert is fighting their status as a four year school too.   The very notion that UW turns so many people away, but still worries about "competition" is just crazy.

    Parent

    Me + science = uh-oh (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sun May 10, 2009 at 02:55:48 AM EST
    Well, I always liked geography, anyway...

    Parent
    Sorta off-topic, but I sure hope that... (none / 0) (#49)
    by EL seattle on Sun May 10, 2009 at 04:17:45 AM EST
    ...the next generation of web software comes with on-the-fly "info" feature for pops up for anything that goes by initials or a nickname.  How many "UWs" do we have in the USA, anyway?  For all I know, maybe the locals call each one of 'em "U-Dub."  I'd like to think that there's only one Wazzu in this whole wide wonderful world, but there might be a few "WSUs" out there, so I'm not going to bet money on that.

    Parent
    Wayne State University (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:02:36 PM EST


    Parent
    My alma mater (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon May 11, 2009 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    I had to stop and think that they were talking about Washington State, and NOT Wayne State.

    Parent
    According to Politico, via Huff Post, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat May 09, 2009 at 08:42:59 PM EST
    the White House press corps is upset with Obama administration's "off the record" briefings.  But, the White House press corps also not speak for attribution.

    He needs better comedy writers (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:12:24 PM EST
    Are these dinners always this unfunny? I thought they would have professional writers for the jokes.

    Obama is not good at delivery. Actually, I (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by DeborahNC on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:27:23 AM EST
    thought that a couple of his jokes were funny, and more could have been funny if done by someone with a flair for comedy.

    Comedy is clearly not Obama's forte.

    Parent

    I can't bring myself to watch. (none / 0) (#10)
    by indy in sc on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:21:08 PM EST
    Obama has never been good at delivering written jokes.  I figured it would be painful to watch.  Sounds like it is.  Is the jokes or the delivery (or both)?

    Parent
    Sounds like the kind of (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:09:32 AM EST
    professional joke writer who just does one-liners.  The "ba-da-boom" from the drummer after each line is implicit.  Yech.

    Both Bush and Clinton had much better writers and much better delivery.  Kills me to admit it, but Bush was very funny at these things.

    Obama does have a funny streak, but it's spontaneous.  The one part of this I did laugh out loud at was when he gibed gently at Michael Steele, then turned to him and said, "Wassup?"

    Parent

    Wanda Sykes isn't funny either (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:19:30 PM EST


    Ah, I'm loving her. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:21:57 PM EST


    Parent
    She's playing to a tough audience. I liked the one (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DeborahNC on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:45:16 AM EST
    about how great it is to have "the first Black president,"
    but if he started screwing up then it would be (paraphrasing), " people will say that's the 1/2 White part...) I'm as bad as Obama at telling a joke, but it was better when she told it.

    I think that her largely White audience with "official Washington" present caused her to have to navigate carefully through her material.

    I agree with Donald that her performance tonight was subpar.

    Parent

    I love her. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Joelarama on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:36:46 AM EST
    I s'pose it's a matter of taste.

    Parent
    Gee... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Maise7 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:19:05 PM EST
    you guys sure know how to suck the fun out of a blog.

    LIGHTEN THE F UP. Good grief!

    Lighten up? No problem. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 10, 2009 at 01:07:02 AM EST
    Leave.

    Parent
    I don't know who wrote (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:23:03 PM EST
    his material, but some of it was just not funny.

    The comment about Dick Cheney not being there because he was working on his memoirs, tentatively titled, How To Shoot Friends and Interrogate People - not funny.

    His comment about Larry Summers asking to chair the Committee on Women and Girls?  Not only not funny, but got some negative audience reaction.

    O.M.G. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:28:11 PM EST
    They only showed a clip of him talking about HRC and Mexico on our news.

    Summers one is tone deaf, but doesn't surprise me. On second thought, it says a lot about Obama from his own mouth . . . .

    ick.

    Parent

    Favreau. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:44:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:00:40 PM EST
    The man with the cardboard Hillary fetish.

    Parent
    d@mn, forgot about him (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:07:27 PM EST
    it now makes sense.

    Parent
    Gosh, how could you forget that little twerp? (none / 0) (#56)
    by DeborahNC on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:58:48 AM EST
    You probably disliked him so much that you suppressed all memories of him. Wish I could!

    Parent
    Same here. He's a dirty word (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun May 10, 2009 at 07:17:59 AM EST
    in my lexicon.  That he kept his job said a lot about where this White House would be for women.  And then hiring Summers, too.  I hoped that Obama might have learned to at least keep up appearances of getting it, but instead he got the frat-boy speechwriter and the guy who thinks like Barbie.

    Parent
    There was a very long (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:10:59 AM EST
    "ewwwwww" from the audience.

    Parent
    Didn't watch (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    I highly doubt that no one will ever beat Stephen Colbert's performance.

    Colbert was wonderful. (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Joelarama on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:38:24 AM EST
    I my mind it was a real zeitgeist moment, a tipping point.  That sounds pretentious, but it felt that way to me.

    Parent
    Agreed entirely (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:13:38 AM EST
    It was a high-wire act, to boot, easily the most risky thing anybody's ever done at that or any similar function by far.  My jaw fell open and I literally held my breath as he was talking.  Wow.

    Parent
    lots of people thought (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:21:39 AM EST
    Colbert bombed that year. I was one of them.

    Parent
    Well, that's what makes horse racing (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:49:11 AM EST
    I watched it live, and my own personal impression at the time was that he skewered Bush and his gasbag court with precision.

    Parent
    I saw it live too (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:14:57 AM EST
    My jaw was on the ground. I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I felt like I witnessed a turning point in public perception of the Bush Administration - maybe not the perception of the people in that room, but I knew it was going to resonate and ripple out - Colbert stood there and spoke truth to power, to the guy sitting a couple of seats down from him.

    It was awesome, and I think Colbert is a hero for doing it.

    Parent

    Er, *anyone* (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:30:06 PM EST


    Parent
    It's so incestuous... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dutchfox on Sun May 10, 2009 at 07:44:12 AM EST
    but we can expect nothing else; after all it's a white house correspondents' dinner for the elite. Where are  those journalists who matter?

    Amy Goodman? Robert Parry? Jeremy Scahill? Max Bluementhal? Seymour Hersh? Matt Taibbi? Murray Waas? Jane Hamsher?


    Contrary to some of (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by brodie on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    the reflexive Obama bashers on this thread, I'd give him solid passing grades for a quality comedy performance last night.  Not great but good deadpan delivery.

    As for Wanda Sykes, it was at least a relief to see someone other than a white male funny guy up there for a change.  I'd take a semi-humorous Sykes over a completely unfunny Don Imus or over-the-hill overly cautious Rich Little any day.  

    That said, she never seemed comfortable up there, as if this might have been the first time she'd worked a nearly all-white establishment crowd.  Well, at least she kept it fairly brief.

    Akkk! (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    This was painful, as WH Correspondents Dinners often are.

    As Jerayln said, Obama  needs better writers, but I wonder why this whole nonsensical farce needs to be continued.  Frankly, it demeans the office of presidency and does nothing to restore confidence in the integrity of the WH Press Corps.

    Does anyone remember the egregious dinner when Don Imus humiliated Bill and Hillary Clinton?  That should have been the signal to end this practical joke on the American people.

    Sikes sucked, Obama held his own, but barely.  The whole dinner is antiquated and irrelevant.

    We need to move on!

    It was for charity? (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    Do they always have as much of a Hollywood set?  I don't generally pay attention unless word gets out I need to check "the video" . . . . guess I'm skipping checking the video this year, eh?

    Parent
    Charity (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Sun May 10, 2009 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    In addition to the journalism school scholarships, the income from the dinner helped fund some charitable donations:

    (From the Washington Correspondents Association website:)

    "In recognition of hard times in the country, the association will skip formal dessert for the 2,700 dinner guests and donate the money saved, $13,140, to the Washington-based charity So Others Might Eat. The association itself will donate an additional $10,000 to SOME, which provides meals, job training and mental health and addiction treatment to the poor."

    Parent

    You can feel quite free (none / 0) (#23)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:54:35 PM EST
    to give this one a skip.

    Parent
    Apparently, they raised money for journalism (none / 0) (#55)
    by DeborahNC on Sun May 10, 2009 at 05:55:54 AM EST
    students' scholarships. The guy who introduced that part of the program said that this one had raised more money than others before it.

    You would think all of those Repubs who financed dirty tricks on the Clintons, etc. could have donated more for charity!

    I've never watched an entire show, so I don't know too much about the regular attendees. From what I've seen though, they always have a sizable Hollywood contingent.

    Parent

    I'll save my breath (none / 0) (#8)
    by SOS on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:12:53 PM EST
    commenting on this idiotic spectacle.

    Speaking of Washington State (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:05:17 PM EST
    We've had our first swine flu death...a 30-something man with a heart condition, died of viral pneumonia.

    Oh, no, that's so sad. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    I heard today why my city closed several schools at once -- the first with the swine flu here is a grandmother of kids in four schools at once.

    She's okay, but others are not doing well. . . .

    Parent

    That is really scary (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:09:10 AM EST
    I hope everyone recovers.

    Here, they closed schools at the first instance of swine flu, then decided not to anymore.  Said that the virus was everywhere, so closing schools does no good.

    Parent

    I'm watching (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:16:00 AM EST
    American Idol Rewind, and that Carrie Underwood girl is singing.  Gee, don't think she'll ever make it in that country genre ;-).

    (She was good even then.)

    What terrorists? (none / 0) (#82)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    "Targetting of terrorists" is the handy catch-all every occupying country uses to justify killing civilians. It's no different here. "Bombing them into submission" is EXACTLY what we are doing -- unless you or the DOD can prove that every one of those civilians killed is a terrorist. Yeah, like that 12-year-old boy selling juice from a stand we killed the other day, or the schoolchildren taking shelter in a U.N. tent that the Israeli army slaughtered in Gaza...I could go on, but the point is it's oh-so-easy and convenient to scream about "terrorists" to justify murder.

    The White House Correspondents' Dinner | 77 comments (77 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment