White House Correspondents Dinner

Who watched President Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner? I'm watching the tail end now. He ended with saying he had more material prepared, but had to get the Secret Service home in time for their new curfew. They didn't look too amused.

Jimmy Kimmel is on now. You can watch live here. [ more}

Jimmy: There's a reason Rush Limbaugh said what he did about Rush Limbaugh: It's called Percocet.

Jimmy addresses Newt Gingrich who's at the dinner, and asks him why he hasn't dropped out. Jimmy tells Newt" It's time to Mitt or get off the pot."

He asks Obama why he's persisting with a marijuana crackdown. He asks the media at the dinner to raise their hand if they've never smoked pot. Maybe 5 people raised their hand.

Is Keith Olbermann here tonight? The limo wouldn't pick him up?

Great job by Jimmy Kimmel. He ends saying he's about to high five the President of the United States, and he does:

Back to Obama, via Twitter, two quotes:

Obama congratulates Pulitzer winning Arianna for LINKING to hard-hitting journalism.

In my first term I passed health care reform, In my second term, I guess Iíll pass it again.
Both Obama and Kimmel are worth watching if you get a chance to see the rerun later.
< Saturday Morning Open Thread | O'Mara Defends Angela Corey on Delayed Discovery Disclosure >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's a totally disgusting (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kmblue on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 05:24:01 AM EST
    self love feast with "journalists" getting pictures taken with Kim Kardashian or whatever her name is.
    Makes me wanna puke--mostly over the death of journalism  We need real reporting now!

    I have to (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    agree with you.

    The thought of our press, if it can be called that, and our journalists, if they can be called that, schmoozing with the people they are supposed to be covering makes me queasy and angry.

    It feels as if it is truly an elitist affair - one from which we are excluded.


    Schmoozing with people they cover (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    is not unusual for journalists. It can be part of developing sources. But I agree that it becomes dangerous when journalists feel closer to people in power than they do others.

    To me, the problem isn't that there are no good journalists, but that there are so few good owners of media outlets. As the bumper sticker says, "The media is as liberal as the corporations that own them."

    Also, if you long for the journalism of old, keep in mind how discriminatory much of it was, in regard to women, minorities, gays, people with disabilities, etc.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    don't long for the journalism of old. I don't even know what that might be. The Hearst papers promoted war as much as CNN and the rest do now.

    What I do miss is the occasional journalist - people now forgotten like I.F. Stone who had a point of view, but not an ax to grind. People who investigated on their own if necessary in order to service the public.

    What Woodward and Bernstein did was also laudable, in my opinion.

    The function of the journalist, in my opinion, is to represent the people. To investigate and ask questions on behalf of the people, and present the answers unfiltered to the public.

    What journalists have become is the exact opposite. They represent the elite. The politicians. The rich and powerful. They aspire to be among them and to make as much money as they do. They serve as conduits from the powerful to the people. They convey to us what they are given by the powerful to convey.

    I despise those people.

    And that is what I observe when I look even fleetingly at that dinner - where Obama jokes about the secret service - or using drones - and gets a big laughs from the well fixed.


    Do you know any journalists? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    I'm guessing not because your critique sounds like it's directed to those at the very top, including those at the dinner. These days, the average reporter and editor just wants to keep their job because there have been layoffs right and left.

    They often do investigative work on their own time, but there's a problem with that. Media owners know that conscientious and/or ambitious reporters will do that, and so, the owners get many unpaid hours out of them.


    The media (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lentinel on Tue May 01, 2012 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    representatives at the dinner do not represent the very top of journalism. They represent the very bottom.

    I understand, but (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:15:53 PM EST
    Washington journalists have always been this way.  Remember that every reporter who covered the White House during the Kennedy administration knew about his, um, proclivities and kept it secret.  Same even for the reporters who covered FDR, all of whom knew he was crippled but none of whom reported it.

    Dennis Perrin (comedian, writer) said it best... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by dutchfox on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    "Give it up for Obama. There aren't many stand up comics who literally kill."

    "why persist with marijuana crackdown?" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 09:40:06 AM EST
    Why serve the people when you can serve yourself?

    Obama's voting history made this clear from the outset.

    The last line (4.33 / 3) (#1)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:56:41 AM EST
    of the New York Times story about the dinner (referencing last year's raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound) includes the phrase "a ballroom full of journalists had no clue what was about to happen." And all I could think was "As usual."

    I invariably experience this event as a ritual disgrace to the spirit of the fifth estate. (The memory of David Gregory dancing with Karl Rove is emblematic of the problem.) But tonight, surprisingly, I also found President Obama's performance weirdly inept and off-key.

    In the CNN preshow, Darrell Hammond came off as an a$$-kissing, authority-worshipping suck. As far as I'm concerned, Stephen Colbert had the last word in 2006 on the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

    Hear, Hear (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:38:54 AM EST

    Colbert owned that night. The material was classic and the performance top-notch.

    I think the press is referred to as the Fourth (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:41:40 AM EST
    Estate, not the the Fifth. :-)

    The American press is a disgrace to the very idea of a free press. Ben Franklin would not be happy with today's crop of journalists.


    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 02:55:52 AM EST
    Thanks. I must have confused the fourth estate with a fifth column.

    Not Touching That Line (none / 0) (#5)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 04:00:48 AM EST
    Even PBS has been thoroughly co-opted. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    Wonder why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    Neither does the guest blogger on Turley's site who wrote the piece.

    It's been "co-opted" because its public funding has been slashed to the bone.

    I note with considerable annoyance that that screed carefully doesn't even mention PBS's best series, Frontline, or its left-leaning largely non-corporate funders.  Probably because it doesn't fit in the sweeping generalized ondemnation he wants to make.

    PBS is no different from any other channel.  Some of its stuff is terrific, a lot of it isn't.


    PBS (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    proved itself to be no different than the rest in an especially saddening display when it went along with the rest in promoting the Bush administrations Iraq war hysteria, presenting the same parade of retired generals and think-tank idiots as CNN, and belittling the opposition as fringe elements.

    It stands to reason that once they became greedy and upwardly mobile, they became dependent on right-leaning corporations and the government to pay for their inflated salaries and production extravagances.

    As you can tell, I really came to despise them.

    The same thing happened to my favorite radio station in New York - WNYC. They started going after corporate money, and now I can't bear to listen to them at all.


    Clear Channel has taken over all the radio (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Angel on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    stations down this way.  Nothing worth listening to anymore, IMO.

    PBS? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 06:12:21 PM EST
    Don't think so.

    One or two individual programs may have, but "PBS" did not.  I have no use for "PBS Newshour" because it's solidly Washington conventional wisdom, just in a little more depth.

    But what you apparently don't realize (and most people don't) is that there is no "PBS" in the way there's ABC or CBS or CNN.  All these shows are individually produced, mostly by individual member stations, and local PBS stations then get to decide whether they'll carry them or not.

    So rage on about "PBS Newshour" or "Charlie Rose" or whatever, but just understand that's not PBS because there is no PBS in the sense of a network that's top-down controlled.


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 07:45:47 PM EST
    But, imo, the programs "individually produced" are produced with an eye to being accepted and aired by local PBS stations - and few if any of them have content that would be unacceptable to the right wing corporate sponsorship on which local stations depend.

    As an aside, I will add that I feel the blood rushing to my head when I hear that a program is being broadcast thanks to the "Waterboard Foundation" and "people like you."

    That, "people like you" sounds to my ears like one of the most condescending catch-phrases in broadcasting history.


    I can't disagree with (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:13:18 PM EST
    anything you say here.  And there's no question there's been enormous pressure on PBS and individual stations from the right wing particularly in the last 10 or 15 years.

    And it's by no means just PBS.  I remember back in the day, the Phil Donahue syndicated show was broadcast on a 24-hour delay in half the country (mostly the South, no surprise) because the local stations were so terrified he'd do something to outrage their viewers -- like doing an informative and sympathetic show on AIDS, which he was doing years before anyone else -- they wanted to preview it ahead of time before broadcasting it, and not infrequently refused to show it as a result.


    Kimmel was funny in (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    the first five minutes but the last ten fell flat with one tepid joke after another delivered at a rapid pace as if he was just trying to get through the material and finish.  Badly in need of pruning and/or stronger jokes.

    I think the talented late night comedian (whose name escapes me) who did the slow jam with Obama would have been much funnier.

    Obama had some good material, but that pitbull vs hockey mom joke was definitely awkward.  Still, for a pol, he is good at this sort of thing.  Unfortunately, it was probably his last appearance as the economy is dictating that we will get Romney next year.  

    The gold standard for comedic appearances at this event is still Colbert in 2006.  Al Franken ca 1996 is a close second.

    The economy is not "deteriorating" (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    it's slowed the pace of recovery.

    And even Karl Rove's analysis shows Obama beating Romney fairly handily.

    Have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh or something??


    Where does brodie say the (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    economy is "deteriorating?"  On my screen, the word I see is "dictating," which is, I believe, saying something quite different.

    Check. And thank you for (none / 0) (#16)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    correctly suggesting I was saying something else entirely. (see below)

    I didn't say "deteriorating" (none / 0) (#15)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    but that the "economy is dictating" that O will end up a one-termer.

    That's my opinion, my assessment, my prediction given the political lay of the land and other factors this election year.  I've consistently maintained that O would need to show substantial improvement on the jobs and foreclosure fronts to get reelected.  I don't see substantial.  Modest, yes.

    And finally there's the difference between prediction and preference.  Compared to most regulars here, I am solidly in favor of his reelection as a loyal Dem and believer in the flawed being preferable to the fatal.

    As for Rove, first, elections aren't decided in the spring and second, I wouldn't trust a thing he said, especially in public.

    (and, no, I never listen to Limbaugh)


    My apologies (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    for misreading "dictating" for "deteriorating," but that's the thrust of your argument, no?

    And truly, nobody but Limbaugh and the Fox forces thinks Romney is likely to win this election short of some unexpected disaster, economic or otherwise.  Most expect it to be close but Obama to squeak it out.  Take that for whatever it's worth since pundits and analysts obviously don't always get it right.  But your certainty that President Romney is a fait accompli is not shared by very many people who study the polls and the electoral college numbers outside the Fox/Limbaugh orbit.

    And FWIW, Karl Rove deeply treasures his creds as an honest and accurate analyst of electoral politics, and in my experience, he's very good at it. IOW, he's no deranged toe-sucking hack like Dick Morris.  The pure political agitprop side is a different story, but his straight electoral analysis is first-rate.


    Rove is not about to tell us (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 11:11:40 PM EST
    that he says shit for the effect it will have on the outcome, is he?
    There is a lot of time before November. No one really knows what is going to happen.  Before the economy tanked in 2008, McCain was the likely winner according to most people.

    (Sigh) there's also a difference (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 08:35:29 PM EST
    between deteriorating and disappointing.  So, put it another way, the disappointing pace of the economic recovery will likely spell doom for O this fall -- and I don't think things on that front will change sufficiently enough to save it for him.

    As for pundits and CW about whose is going to win, I mostly don't follow them or their analyses, including the liberals.  Although I do get the sense my view of who's going to prevail is probably a small minority view on this side of the aisle.  So be it.


    All I've (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:00:02 AM EST
    been hearing is that it's going to be close.

    Obama's main problem at this time is the enthusiasm gap. Voters just aren't that enthused about him.


    Rove is not about to tell us (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:56:09 PM EST
    that he says shit for the effect it will have on the outcome, is he?
    There is a lot of time before November. No one really knows what is going to happen.  Before the economy tanked in 2008, McCain was the likely winner according to most people.

    If (none / 0) (#20)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 06:12:44 PM EST
    Women, young people and blacks and Hispanics show up to vote, Obama will win.

    The question is whether they will do so.  

    women vote more than men (none / 0) (#30)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    watch his back? (none / 0) (#24)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 09:38:50 PM EST
    "He ended with saying he had more material prepared, but had to get the Secret Service home in time for their new curfew. They didn't look too amused."

    Sorry, but Obama shouldn't make "jokes" at the expense of the people who are expected to take a bullet for him.
    A class person would let other people's jokes swirl but watch the Secret Service's back by keeping his own face impassive.

    If you weren't offended by that, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:43:42 AM EST
    it would've been something else that the dastardly secret-muslim-socialist-treehugger did that got your knickers in a bunch..

    A little very-mild ribbing sent the Secret Service's way doesn't undermine the dignity of the Presidency or the SS, except in the minds of those who immediatly lose their sense of humor any time they see Obama at the Presidential podium.    


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#29)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:54:17 AM EST