Regardless of what Obama does, apparently what's changed is the role of the media. It's not about journalism any more, Chris Matthews said it's his job to help make Obama's presidency a success.

Quote:

---

Matthews: My Job Is To Make Obama Presidency a Success

By Mark Finkelstein
November 6, 2008 - 09:35 ET

Just in time for the new James Bond movie, Chris Matthews has earned himself a new moniker: Odd Job. Matthews says he sees his job as a journalist as doing everything he can to make the Obama presidency a success.

Appearing on "Morning Joe" today, Matthews was reluctant to criticize Rahm Emanuel's kabuki dance over accepting Obama's offer to be chief of staff.

The "Hardball" host (and presumptive candidate for U.S. Senate from PA) was equally unwilling to see the Emanuel episode as evidence of a lack of planning and discipline in the nascent Obama administration. Matthews eventually explained why.[H/t multiple NB readers.]

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn't done with his odd new job description.. . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews's repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Matthews will hardly be alone in that sentiment. Once Obama assumes office, the "speaking truth to power" line we've heard so often during the past eight years will be a thing of the past.

---

Matthews must be right, the media certainly did their part to get Obama elected so it must be their job to make sure he's successful. Of course that will be easier if the Dems get their way with the "Fairness" doctrine, and our president-elect has tapped former FCC head Henry Rivera, who believes in "communications policy as a civil rights issue," to lead his FCC transition team. Cheer up, you may not have to bad mouth Fox News and Limbaugh for much longer... or should they be allowed to hold the government accountable?

He can change the rules at the FCC by executive fiat. I think in June an FCC seat opens up and that will give Obama the majority he needs there .

BTW ; I wonder how MSNBC thinks they will fare under a Fairness Doctrine . Who is loony fringe enough on the right to give equal time to Olbermann ?

Speaking on the objective media...
Tom Brokaw admitted to Charlie Rose that we really don't know much about 'the one' . I guess it never occurred to him when he moderated the debate that perhaps he should ask .Maybe he is having a pang of journalistic integrity guilt.. . Nah !

Yes it comes as no surprise that Matthews was in the tank .That thrill up his leg has reached orgasmic proportions . There are stains on the ceiling at 30 Rock to prove it. He makes no bones about his partisanship . He was once an assistant to Speaker Tip O'Neill .

Let's see, Ann Colter, Michael Savage... that would make Olbermann's show interesting. But nah, I doubt if it will apply to liberal networks.

Did you catch the exchange between Charlie Rose and the Newsweek guys?

Quote:

---

MEACHAM: I was very struck watching the stagecraft -- and this comes out again and again in the project -- in Grant Park [Chicago], he walks out with the family, and then they go away. Biden’s back, you know, locked in the bar or something, you know --

(Rose laughs.)

MEACHAM: They don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage? No adoring wife, no cute kid -- he is the message.

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this. I mean, he is such an admirable --

ROSE: ‘Slightly creepy cult of personality’?

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What’s ‘slightly creepy’ about it?

THOMAS: It just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He knows how to do it. He’s a -- I think, a deeply manipulative guy -- you know, this could be a useful thing in a leader --

ROSE: How so is he ‘deeply manipulative’?

THOMAS: I think he's always in control, you know -- he controls events, events don't control him. He's a pretty calm guy. He seem to be able to get people to do pretty much what he wants.

I think the key moment, to answer your question -- when did he have this inking. I think it's when he was running for -- to be the president of the Harvard Law Review. He would spend a lot of time searching for himself, and deciding that he was a black man -- and he goes to Harvard and there's this politically-correct frought time, and there are conservatives and there are liberals. He manages to persuade all of them that he's on their side... And he realizes that people want to help him. They want to help him. It makes people feel good to help -- And this is an important insight for him. Oh my gosh, I have this gift. I have this knack. People are going to want to help -- want to help me. I'll let them help me, all the way to the White House. I'll bet you that was the first time. That's when he starts to write his memoir, and the memoir stops before he gets to Harvard... He leaves out the critical chapter, because I think the critical moment then is when he realizes he has got this gift, and he is going to ride it as far as he possibly can.

---

LOL, let's get him elected before we talk about how "creepy" this all is so he can "usefully" manipulate people. I guess it just all depends on which creepy, manipulative guy is in the White House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tom Brokaw admitted to Charlie Rose that we really don't know much about 'the one' .

---

Moving for forward can we agree not to call him 'the one' and instead refer to him as "Neo" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

Moving for forward can we agree not to call him 'the one' and instead refer to him as "Neo" ;)

---

Neo's good, but since we're about to change how we measure time to A.B. I think "the one" is more appropriate. :D

After his Super Tuesday results Obama said in his Feb 5 address:

Quote:

---

We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who've been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine.

Yes they can.

We are the hope of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake with doubts that tell him he cannot give his children the same opportunities that someone gave him.

Yes he can.

We are the hope of the woman who hears that her city will not be rebuilt; that she cannot reclaim the life that was swept away in a terrible storm.

Yes she can.

We are the hope of the future; the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided; that we cannot come together; that we cannot remake this world as it should be.

---

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/0...ck_obam_46.php
But I choose to address him in the singular.

Don't forget he's brought the Joshua Generation to the Promised Land. Since we are lining up our Biblical references... ;)

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - The Joshua Generation « - Blogs from CNN.com

Indeed he addressed that in his Grant Park Speech

Quote:

---

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

---

Apparently at least one Obama supporter thinks "the world as it should be" means she won't have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage because Obama is going to help her if she helps him.

Here it comes, change:

Quote:

---

* Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

* Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school re­pair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.

---

The was so important he listed it twice. I'm not sure how sticking it to the oil companies to give us a rebate to pay for these new costs they'll pass on is going to help, or how enacting a windfall profits tax that killed us before is not "playing the same Washington game...and expecting a different result." But hey, I didn't vote for this mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Here it comes, change:



The was so important he listed it twice. I'm not sure how sticking it to the oil companies to give us a rebate to pay for these new costs they'll pass on is going to help, or how enacting a windfall profits tax that killed us before is not "playing the same Washington game...and expecting a different result." But hey, I didn't vote for this mess.

---

If it matters, Palin (that Maverick and Champion of the anti-spread the wealth cause) increased taxes on the oil companies in Alaska, and then promptly spread their new found wealth in the form of a check to each Alaskan resident in the amount of $2k+.

Seems like conservatives like that idea too... ;)

Well now Tex, I suppose you could say that. I guess we could just have the feds be like Alaska and assume ownership of all the country's natural resources and split the royalties evenly among Americans. But since that's (hopefully) not going to happen, why would we want to ream the oil companies, who will most definitely in turn pass those costs on to us, discourage production and development, and who knows, cost more job losses? I remember when gas doubled in price under Carter, it's just now down to reasonable levels again and I'd rather not encourage prices to double again.

I don't know the ins and outs of how Obama's plan would differ from what they have in Alaska, but I do know we don't know what Obama has in mind. We can get clues such as he thinks it should be reasonable for oil companies to "share" more of their record profits, but I find no specifics.

I know Durbin said that "the oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy."

I know that Exxon-Mobil paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes between 2003-2007, $19 billion dollars more than they made in after-tax U.S. earnings. How much is enough? Since when did U.S. economic policy mean there's a limit to how much profit you can make? How do we decide what that magic number is?

Do people realize that this "record profit" by Exxon-Mobil was only a 10% profit margin? If 10% is the new standard, who are they going to hit next?

What a funny comparison . In one case the government is picking the pockets of a target group to give it to other target groups.

In the other case, a business is using the resourses of a state for profit .The government instead of inventing new and creative ways to spend the tax;fee ;lease ,whatever you want to call it... that the company pays for the rights to use the people's land ;distributes it back equitably to all the people of the state .

Perhaps that best explains the difference between a liberal "redistribution" and a conservative "let the people keep their wealth"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Perhaps that best explains the difference between a liberal "redistribution" and a conservative "let the people keep their wealth"

---

Yep, you got it.