Obama is fun when he's flailing about!

[Tigermike 3,055]

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

Obama's Answer on the Johnson Conundrum

June 10, 2008 11:42 AM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, how he could "rail against Countrywide Financial Corp as an example of insiders and today's economy while your VP search is headed by someone who got questionable loans from Countrywide?" (This is an issue we wrote about earlier today.)

"And in addition," Miller continued, "another person on that same VP search team – Eric Holder -- has also been involved in the Marc Rich scandal."

"Well, look," Obama said, "the, the, I mean - first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages, so you’re gong to have to direct --

"But shouldn’t you?" asked Miller.

"Well, no," Obama said. "It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played - everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships -- I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean, at some point, you know, we just asked people to do their assignments.

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task," Obama continued, "as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate. (I am not vetting my VP search committee)

"So this – you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me," Obama said. "They're not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discreet task that they're going to performing for me over the next two months." (I am not vetting my VP search committee)

You can watch some of this press conference HERE:

Did I read that correctly? Did Obama claim that Johnson and Holder -- two of the three people heading up his VP search committee -- aren't "work"ing for him?

I suppose that's because they're unpaid, but my stars, that's a lot of high-level, time-consuming sensitive effort to not be considered "working" for Sen. Obama. (I am not vetting my VP search committee)

- jpt

UPDATE: Sen. John McCain presidential campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds just pounced on this, saying “It’s preposterous for Senator Obama to claim that the leader of his VP selection committee isn’t working for him. Barack Obama has castigated Countrywide Financial, but now that Jim Johnson has been exposed for taking sweetheart deals from Countrywide’s CEO - Obama is in a state of denial. It’s that brand of weak leadership and hypocrisy that shows why Barack Obama has no record of taking courageous stands or making change in Washington.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...s-answer-o.html

It is funny watching Obama fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you. And you guys wonder why he has been called an empty suit. But you believe him don't you? He wants change. All the change in your pockets after he already has taxed you for the dollars.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

Obama's Answer on the Johnson Conundrum

June 10, 2008 11:42 AM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, how he could "rail against Countrywide Financial Corp as an example of insiders and today's economy while your VP search is headed by someone who got questionable loans from Countrywide?" (This is an issue we wrote about earlier today.)

"And in addition," Miller continued, "another person on that same VP search team – Eric Holder -- has also been involved in the Marc Rich scandal."

"Well, look," Obama said, "the, the, I mean - first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages, so you’re gong to have to direct --

"But shouldn’t you?" asked Miller.

"Well, no," Obama said. "It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played - everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships -- I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean, at some point, you know, we just asked people to do their assignments.

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task," Obama continued, "as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate. (I am not vetting my VP search committee)

"So this – you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me," Obama said. "They're not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discreet task that they're going to performing for me over the next two months." (I am not vetting my VP search committee)

You can watch some of this press conference HERE:

Did I read that correctly? Did Obama claim that Johnson and Holder -- two of the three people heading up his VP search committee -- aren't "work"ing for him?

I suppose that's because they're unpaid, but my stars, that's a lot of high-level, time-consuming sensitive effort to not be considered "working" for Sen. Obama. (I am not vetting my VP search committee)

- jpt

UPDATE: Sen. John McCain presidential campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds just pounced on this, saying “It’s preposterous for Senator Obama to claim that the leader of his VP selection committee isn’t working for him. Barack Obama has castigated Countrywide Financial, but now that Jim Johnson has been exposed for taking sweetheart deals from Countrywide’s CEO - Obama is in a state of denial. It’s that brand of weak leadership and hypocrisy that shows why Barack Obama has no record of taking courageous stands or making change in Washington.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...s-answer-o.html

It is funny watching Obama fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you. And you guys wonder why he has been called an empty suit. But you believe him don't you? He wants change. All the change in your pockets after he already has taxed you for the dollars.

I think by "working" for him he means "being paid to do a particular job." Of course they are performing a job or function for him, but it's on an unpaid, volunteer basis.

That aside, he does need to be willing to at least investigate a bit to see to what extent these guys may be tainted or implicated in these issues. He's right in one sense...you could vet people to death and the vetting of the vetters could go on ad infinitum/ad absurdum. But the better answer would probably be, "To my knowledge this isn't going to be a problem, but we'll look into it at bit deeper."

[autigeremt 6,717]

Like I've said before, these guys cannot escape from everyone. Both have people around their campaigns that were associated with some special interest or company.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I suppose it all depends on your definition of the word “work”.

But then who does that remind us of? All along we have been told the Democrats were opting for hope and change instead of the Clinton Restoration.

The McCain campaign calls it “preposterous”.

Preposterous is one word for it. Effluvium would be another polite word, for this site. But better still would be complete bull****. Can I say complete bull**** here? (I guess not. )

[autiger4life 3]

It is funny watching Obama fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you. And you guys wonder why he has been called an empty suit.

Actually, that is the funny part. He has been called an empty suit because of how well he speaks, not because of how poorly he speaks.

Also, I'm not sure many right wingers have a very good base to make fun of a Presidential candidate because they fumble for words.

[Tigermike 3,055]

It is funny watching Obama fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you. And you guys wonder why he has been called an empty suit.

Actually, that is the funny part. He has been called an empty suit because of how well he speaks, not because of how poorly he speaks.

Also, I'm not sure many right wingers have a very good base to make fun of a Presidential candidate because they fumble for words.

Actually he was called an empty suit because he was speaking well when he had a written speech and a telepromptor in front of him while at the same time not having a clue of what he was talking about.

Anyone that listens to pols speaking would have a reference to compare with. From the right and from the left. The left has held up Obama as being the best speaker, dresser, spiritual, smartest, best looking, etc, etc, etc, politician to ever walk down the road. That is what is funny watching you guys defend and prop up his every move and every word he says.

BTW - What is the definition of the word “work”?

[autiger4life 3]

Anyone that listens to pols speaking would have a reference to compare with. From the right and from the left. The left has held up Obama as being the best speaker, dresser, spiritual, smartest, best looking, etc, etc, etc, politician to ever walk down the road. That is what is funny watching you guys defend and prop up his every move and every word he says.

Did I prop up what he said. Did I endorse it or agree with it or say it sounded smart? No, I believe all I said was his speaking ability is part of what got him here and the republicans probably shouldn't talk much. I never mentioned anything about agreeing with what he said.

As far as his speaking, many think he does well during the debates, including his speaking ability. And please don't try the "yea because they prepare for the debate." They prepare for every question so with that logic there wouldn't ever be an unscripted moment.