Henry asked his (stupid) question about AIG and why Obama didn't get livid immediately, and Obama answered it.

What annoyed Obama is that Henry's followup question was exactly the same thing. "Why did it take you two days to get angry?" It's a stupid question that tells us nothing. It's a "gotcha" question that borders on a personal insult, and brings the public no closer to understanding what Obama is doing.

Asking the President about what he's not doing, especially when what he's not doing is losing his temper is not a legitimate pursuit of the press corps.

People who think Obama's response was inappropriate seem to be people predisposed to be against Obama no matter what he said.

Ed Henry is playing the juvenile game of focusing on the personalities of the leaders as opposed to the substance of what Washington is doing. It's a sad state of affairs when such an unserious approach to journalism is rewarded with the plum assignment at the White House, but it is the state of affairs at most of the major media corporations. That's because the forces at work in the media do not, in fact, reward competence, but rather loyalty to the overall corporate agenda.

For starters, Obama inherited an economy that was in tatters due to years of deregulation that allowed wholesale theivery by irresponsible business leaders. So it's hard to think that Obama's policies are "wrecking the economy". It's already a mess!

Anyway...

1) I'm fairly sure that Obama has yet to propose universal health care. But I don't quite understand how the church of the free market can stand back and assert, contrary to all evidence, that free market efficiency is keeping down health care costs. All evidence is to the contrary! The US provides less health care at a greater cost than any other industrialized nation.

But some people are so indoctrinated in right-wing thought that they simply turn their minds off whenever the inadequacies of their thinking is demonstrated.

Bottom line: if there were universal health care, it would no longer be the case that every employer would have to provide health care with their labor contracts, which would, on the whole, make labor costs much more manageable. Which could lead to lower costs for businesses.

2) There really are not a lot of oil reserves left in the United States. Only the wingnut attendees of the Republican National Convention think that "more drilling" constitutes a realistic solution to the energy problems. Serious people understand that the United States hit peak oil in the 1960s". You know - over 40 years ago! As for nuclear energy, I am unaware that Obama has ruled out nuclear power as one of a set of options that the US is going to need to pursue in the future. The biggest problem with nuclear power is the prevalence of cost overruns during the construction process.

3) I'm sorry to hear you don't care about education. Most Americans think that education is worth the investment. Putting education in scare quotes is not quite enough to make an argument.

4) more federal dollars on everything imaginable? Are you one of those people who thought volcano observation was a waste of money?

Truth be told, government spending is a good way to turn around a flagging economy. There is currently (yet another) anti-intellectual pursuit by the Powers That Be to try to rewrite history and pretend that The New Deal failed. But this "economic philosophy" is entirely self-interested propaganda by people who despise paying taxes and don't want to admit that they are a necessary evil in a society that wants a functioning government.

Actually. he's the first half black president...

...Gee I know all the delusional biology dropouts out there need him to be 100% black for warm and fuzzy, feel good purposes; and the media quickly decreed during the campaign that he was, in fact. an African American; but it just ain't so...Still, it was stupid, pointless question, and off topic.

-- Event Horizon

Let's see...if I have one parent with green eyes and one with brown eyes, and I am born with green eyes, am I "half green-eyed"?

From a historical standpoint, as far as rights have been granted in the United States, if you are part black, you are all black. A bastard son of a slave woman and her white master was still considered a slave.

You do understand how political parties work, don't you?

People who want to trumpet their independence from their party are free to run as independents. That's what Bernie Sanders did. People who ride Obama's coattails and tap into party money do, indeed, have an obligation to come together and respect the core principles of the party.

For far too long, a branch of the Democratic party has made hay as "reasonable centrists" by simultaneously using the Democratic brand while taking the money of banking and pharmaceutical interests, and then ensuring that the core principles that are held to by 75% of the party rank-and-file are crippled by their consistent efforts to make sure that no real reform ever happens.

The notion that opposing Obama represents "independence" is laughable. It represents loyalty to a different constituency. Nobody is elected to Congress to be "independent". They are elected to vote according to the wishes of the people who empowered them.

Isn't that what we expect out of a representative democracy?