The first press conference on television last night was more proof that Bush is an easy act to follow. How refreshing was it to have a president speak coherently without smirking and furrowing his brows at every question that protrudes and probes at future decisions the president may or may not make?

::::::::

The first press conference on television last night was more proof that Bush is an easy act to follow. How refreshing was it to have a president speak coherently without smirking and furrowing his brows at every question that protrudes and probes at future decisions the president may or may not make?

But, overall, it was a pragmatic press conference. The choice of Elkhart, IN over Cleveland, OH or Detroit, MI was pragmatic. And should Obama continue to play it safe on the issues? 

Should he be the president of conventional wisdom at a time when conventional wisdom is so heavily doubted?

Being from Indiana, I can tell you that Elkhart’s economy thrived on the RV industry. When oil and gas rose to the level it did in spring and summer of 2008, jobs were being cut and RV companies, which had been experiencing a significant drop in businesses for quite a few months, could not continue operations.

Elkhart has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Nearly 8,000 jobs have been lost. (Its population is about 51,000.)

It is clear that Obama is correct when he says, “I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis, as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans,” but I read some stunning economic analyses during the final two months of the presidential election by Michael Hudson, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, and Ralph Nader  

I wonder what Hudson, Paul, Roberts, or Nader think of the current stimulus and believe they have the credibility to discern what would be good for economy and not good for our economy.

Danny Schechter described the hacking of the stimulus in “The Farts of Compromise: Hacking the Stimulus.” The quote he uses from Benjamin Barber, author of Consumed, seems to be relevant and must have been the backbone for Chuck Todd’s question during the press conference.

Benjamin Barber suggested the stimulus is all about “priming the pump.”

“Let's get people getting those credit cards again. Let's get people to the mall. Let's get people spending again. Back in 2001, after the terrorist attack in America, President Bush said, 'let's get back to the mall and get back to doing that good American thing of shopping.' Unfortunately, the new economic team of the new president may be saying somewhat the same thing.”

The exchange between Todd and Obama that looked at whether consumer spending is the way out of this crisis or not went like this:

In your opening remarks, you talked about that if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending, or over-spending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first, before they start spending money into the economy?

MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies, based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.

That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy.

So people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investments, initiating layoffs, which in turn made things worse.

Now, you are making a legitimate point, Chuck, about the fact that our savings rate has declined. And this economy has been driven by consumer spending for a very long time. And that's not going to be sustainable. You know, if all we're doing is spending and we're not making things, then over time, other countries are going to get tired of lending us money. And eventually the party's going to be over.

Well, in fact, the party now is over. And so the sequence of how we're approaching this is as follows. Our immediate job is to stop the downward spiral. And that means putting money into consumers' pockets. It means loosening up credit…

Obama drew a nice line in the sand, but was the line drawn in the right place? He found a way to make some key points that would apply pressure to Republicans who are against the stimulus and that would force skeptics to rethink their skepticism.

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now.

Number two is that, although there are some programs in there that I think are good policy, some of them aren't job-creators. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that those programs should be out of this particular recovery package and we can deal with them later.

But when they start characterizing this as pork, without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package -- something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.

So I'm going to keep on engaging. I hope that, as we get the Senate and the House bills together, that everybody is willing to give a little bit. I suspect that the package that emerges is not going to be 100 percent of what I want.

But my bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs? And are we laying the foundation for long-term economic growth?

This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that, "What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient." Why would that be a waste of money?

We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus.

And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

What Obama is hoping to implement with his economic stimulus package that may or may not create 4 million jobs is a basic form of the Workers’ Green Administration (WGA) that Democratic presidential nominee Dennis Kucinich proposed during the 2008 election. And, it indeed may be worthwhile to remember America’s Works Progress Administration and implement a strategy for economic survival that recalls FDR’s program.  

Obama set a bottom line that was spoken about frequently---saving or creating 4 million jobs. Why 4 million? Why not 3 million or 5 million? What is the significance of that number?

Outside of the economic stimulus package discussion, there were a few other questions that were noteworthy. Each had an answer that proved Obama will tiptoe cautiously when approaching issues that are still stigmatized by the Bush Administration.

CNN’s Ed Henry asked about whether the media would have access to flag-draped coffins or not. Obama replied:

 

Now, with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don't want to give you an answer now before I've evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved.

Henry also asked the key question on Afghanistan---When will Obama be withdrawing troops? Obama replied:

 

I do not have yet a timetable for how long that's going to take. What I know is I'm not going to make -- I'm not going to allow Al Qaeda or bin Laden to operate with impunity, planning attacks on the U.S. homeland.

 

Obama’s answer was restrained and safe. He chose to use a line already popularized by the Bush Administration and accepted as truth. (Remember, Saddam and WMDs in Iraq as threats were once accepted as truth too. Now, it’s difficult to make a case that either posed a threat.)

Seasoned press corps veteran Helen Thomas got an opportunity to pose a question. Her question was the most challenging foreign policy question of the night.

Question: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And, also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

Obama: Well, I think that Pakistan -- there is no doubt that, in the FATA region of Pakistan, in the mountainous regions along the border of Afghanistan, that there are safe havens where terrorists are operating.

And one of the goals of Ambassador Holbrooke, as he is traveling throughout the region, is to deliver a message to Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations and that we've got to work in a regional fashion to root out those safe havens.

It's not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and children. And, you know, I -- I believe that the new government of Pakistan and -- and Mr. Zardari cares deeply about getting control of the situation. We want to be effective partners with them on that issue.

Again, safe and reserved. He was also safe and reserved when asked about the proposal that Sen. Leahy has for the establishment of a truth commission to investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration.

I haven't seen the proposals, so I don't want to express an opinion on something that I haven't seen.

What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process, as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm. And I don't think those are contradictory; I think they are potentially complementary.

My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.

But that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, the -- all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush without adequate information.

Obama ultimately said he would look at the proposal to hold Bush Administration members “accountable”, but believed that we must “get it right looking forward.”

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley dealt with this flawed argument in this video from Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann weeks ago when he explained how Obama must prosecute or investigate war crimes.

Turley suggested he (or any lawyer) would be laughed out of court if he said something like what Obama might be saying---Yeah, a crime was committed, but let’s not look in the past, let’s look forward. (VIDEO)

At this point, Americans have a president consumed with an economic stimulus package which is having its message controlled by Republicans. Two military adventures continue in the Middle East --- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strikes are occurring in Pakistan. And, Obama cannot find the moral clarity to call for the restoration of the rule of law in America.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post still thinks George W. Bush is president:

Question: Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

Obama: You know, I think it's depressing news on top of what's been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And if you're a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it -- it tarnishes an entire era, to some degree. And it's unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight.

And, you know, the thing I'm probably most concerned about is the message it sends to our kids. What I'm pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be taking this seriously, to recognize how big a problem this is for the sport, and that our kids hopefully are watching and saying, "You know what? There are no short cuts, that when you try to take short cuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity's not worth it." That's the message I hope is communicated.

At a time when Obama should have given a one to two sentence answer or just simply said baseball is minor in comparison to the major problems America faces, President Obama chose to legitimize this question.

A baseball question in his first presidential press conference?

I don’t care and the people of Elkhart, IN don’t care either.

Transcript posted at HuffPost

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com