Obama on 'Meet the Press'

This article sounds strongly biased towards Clinton. Ever hear of being objective?

In your opinion how well did Barack Obama do on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=941

.

I think it was a good interview. And notice how Obama answered the questions Russert asked, and did not complain about "piling on" or people picking on him, after the interview was done. Obama was very Presidential, he was measured and answered the questions openly and honestly, without making excuses or hedging.

The Term "Fact Check web site" from the Clinton Campaign is laughable. After the revelations this week of her campaign "planting questions" in order to manipulate Q&A with "regular people" at campaign stops completely kills any credibility she or her campaign has when trying to paint Obama as being dishonest. She is engaging in the exact same Orwellian propaganda tactics of the Bush Administration. I don't trust ANYTHING coming out of her campaign. Planting Questions? Looks to me like she is trying to do that in this article as well.
We can expect the Clinton Campaign to continue the stealth smear campaign against Barack Obama as her poll numbers continue to slide and she get's more and more worried, just like she did earlier in the year with that crap about Obama being raised in a "madrassa'.
I have had enough of the Clinton's and Bush's. I would love an Obama/Edwards ticket. That would be the best thing for this country.

Hillary won't appear on Meet the Press unless she can replace Russert with a questioner of her own choosing...and then plant the questions she's prepared to answer.

Well, it's about time he finally entered a forum in which the questions are a little tougher than they are on Ellen.

Anyway, his answers regarding Rezko were weak and Russert didn't really press him on it. Russert also didn't ask Obama about all the varying problems the Democrats in Illinois are having with scandal and such. It is his party and one in which Obama was born and developed in so it's a fair issue.
I see his solution for Social Security is to raise taxes. That still doesn't solve the overall problem because those making over $102,000 a year are a small minority of the workforce. The best solution and brought up again by Fred Thompson is to begin forming private Social Security accounts. Anyway, increasing the Social Security taxes won't be the only taxes Obama will raise.

Russert asked some tough questions and instead of whining about gotcha politics, Obama answered the questions openly and honestly. When he is challenged, his decency, empathy, and honesty shine through.

In response to Anonymous: increasing the Social Security tax cap will have a major difference. Even though there are only a small percentage of people who make over $102,000, those people bring in more than 20% of our country's income. That's a sizeable chunk of the social security budget, and it will mean that everyone is paying the same percentage of their income toward Social Security. Privatizing social security has two issues: social security wasn't intended to be a personal investment - it's the most basic level of government support, and is not something to be gambled with or distributed unevenly. Also, privatizing social security accounts has the effect of favoring those in charge of the stock market and investment accounts. Social security was designed to prevent unmitigated capitalism from causing the problems that led up to the great depression.

All of the Democrats have good ideas about Social Security, but I think Obama's plan is the clearest, and seems like the one that will be most effective.

So Obama also accepts money from lobbyists and other powerful interests.He also doesn't want release his own record. What a hypocrite.

I don't follow Obama's distinction between "combat" troops and "anti-terrorism" troops. We are not fighting the Iraqi Army, so it seems to me all the troops there now could be called anti-terrorism troops. I think he is smart not to get pinned down on troop levels. He is not a military man and will obviously have to rely on the advice of commanders.

McCormick kindly describes Obama's 2004 interview as leaving "wiggle room" regarding his position on the war. For those of you who haven't seen it, this is the quote he gave in response to whether he would have voted for the War Resolution had he been a Senator: "But I'm not privy to the Senate Intelligence Reports. What would I have done? I don't know."

His explanation for this statement which I'm sure he wishes he never made is that he did not want to speak out against some high ranking members of his party while they were up for elections. Now he is in a catch-twenty-two; he either was being honest at the interview, which blows a hole in his antiwar campaign, or he was intentionally misleading for political reasons.

You GOP losers sure do like to cry. Wait until 2008. You'll really have something to cry about.

Bush/Cheney.
Impeach & imprison!!!

Re: Anonymous's praise of Thompson's SS plan.

It seems to me that if 1) the current system, which focuses on 401(k)'s for retirement, is not meeting its goal of solidifying retirement and 2) people who already have money to contribute will benefit even further, that this is not a sound way to reform the system and should be DOA.

I'm not generally opposed to slowing the accumulation of benefits. People live longer than they did 30 years ago and it is not unreasonable that people work longer before retiring. Further, I favor implementing means-based testing and phasing out benefits depending on income levels (the rationale being that those phased out have adequate means for retirement; this would also be in line with the true intent of SS: SS comprising a higher percent of income for those with less means to save during their working years). I also favor an elimination of the current income cap for SS taxes.

However, this plan won't fix the problem. The current retirement system simply isn't meeting the goal of helping people save for retirement. Plans like Thompson's only tweak the status quo rather than ID'ing the true reason for an inadequate savings rate. It does little to mitigate the risk that Americans would naturally shoulder under a 401(k)-styled plan vs. SS's pension-for-life-styled scheme.

This falls under the typical conservative canard: people have all the means needed to accomplish a lofty savings goal and only need a slight tax-favorable incentive to push them into action. (This of course ignores the fact that if people saved more, less would be spent and the economy would take a hit.)

I'll give Thompson credit for at least raising the issue.

Not sure why my post at 2:38 pm came up as "Anonymous," but that would be me.

So Obama also accepts money from lobbyists and other powerful interests.He also doesn't want release his own record. What a hypocrite.

Posted by: Megan | November 11, 2007 7:01 PM

A republican calling Obama a hypocrite. Now that IS funny!

I think Russert was not at his best. He wanted to appear like a trial lawyer. He did a poor job by taking statements Obama has made out of context. He did a very poor job but I was impressed the way Obama answered each one of his questions.

Kasandra you really should do some basic research so you do not look so ignorant in the future. Clinton went on meet the press over a month ago. However, unlike Obhama she was able to answer the questions directly. Unlike, Obhama WHO JUST DOESNT KNOW WHERE HIS RECORDS ARE FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS! If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.She also did not do a legal deal with an indicted felon.
Nor was he able to back up the any differences between his voting record which is identical to Clinton except that he has missed over 25% of the votes while in the Senate compared to Clinton that has missed less than 10% of the vote for the same period. In addition he was only 1 of 2 senators who missed the Iraq vote the other senator was in the hospital. He also refuses to name his Pact contributors Clinton names all his contributers. I know most of what I said is over your head . However, maybe your lack of information will cause you to become more informed!.

Megan -

Did you actually read the article or see the interview? Obama has accepted less money from lobbyists and PAC's than just about any other candidate (with the exception of Paul and Kucinich). He admits to having accepted money from PAC's from previous campaigns (which is perfectly legal), but has decided to take the high ground and not do so in this campaign.

His records are an open book as well. Again if you comprehended the article, you would see that records regarding scheduling and the like are not required of State Senators, and that Obama had to keep track of these things himself, without a team of staffers.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't have every appointment I've ever had written down anywhere. Now that it is required of Obama, his staff is doing so diligently, and those records are available publicly.

Any other questions?

Little Johnny D,
Give five questions YOU would have pressed on Obama about Rezko. Your little observation about IL Democrats IS a fair question but it is NOT relevant. Unless you think Obama can control the thoughts and actions of others you silly deranged lunatic.

Chris, the reason private retirement accounts would work is because:
1. The growth of the money invested far exceeds the government's quotas.
2. The government cannot spend your money.

Take the money taken from your paycheck as well as a majority of the employer's contribution and put it in a retirement fund, much like a 401k. Over the years that money would translate into well over $1 million, far better than the $1,500 monthly Social Security check.

A small percentage of the employer matching fund could go into a government program to help the poor , disabled, sick in their retirement. If they want to tax the wealthy beyond the soon-to-be $102,000 a year for Social Security benefits, then a smaller tax, say 1 percent of that income, could go into that same fund to help the poor, disabled and sick.

It sure is better than the current system.

Obama is amazing guys! Help show your support at the online election: http://OurVote.us/

At one point Obama was asked whether he stood by his claim he would be willing to meet with hostile leaders without preconditions. His response at one point was "look, I said I would be WILLING to meet. I didn't say I WOULD." Had Hillary said that there would be howls all over the country about Hillary trying to have it both ways.

He also made a feeble attempt to distinguish Hillary's position that certain "preconditions" may be necessary from his now that he would need to "do the diplomatic work necessary to lead up to such a meeting", as if there is a difference between the two positions. He's still trying to parse his way out of that one.

He criticizes Hillary for not having a firm timeline on exiting Iraq, yet won't say how many troops he'll leave behind until he's spoken with generals. Hillary simply says she will consult with generals on both points before giving firm timelines and numbers. Who's being more responsible?

He criticizes Hillary for insisting that we ensure that we are first being fiscally responsible with the money we have before talking about exactly what we have to do about social security. Yet his solution is to simply raise taxes, although yesterday he would not provide specifics as to how and on what incomes taxes would be increased. So we really don't what he's going to do either.

Oh Dumb Dumb Janet, your little maniacal diatribes are quite the hoot.

The state of the Democratic party in Illinois is an issue, especially with Obama supporting and campaigning for Rod and Boy Stroger last year, and his personal appeal on behalf of Alexi Giannoulos.

And where has Obama been on the problems in this state and the fact that it is taking the Democratic governor and Democratic legislature months to come up with anything addressing the state's problems? Durbin at leat did say something over the summer. Obama has said nothing.

In regard to Rezko, follow-up questions for Russert based on Obama's answers could include:
1. Why not give back the money Rezko raised for you since he is under indictment?
2. You had relations and dealings with him while he was being investigated, why?
3. You say you made a mistake in dealing with him, what were those mistakes and what do you think you should have done differently?
4. How exactly did that land deal work between you and Tony Rezko?
5. How were you able to buy the land and home under market value? What assistance did Tony Rezko give you in that deal? Did he help arrange it? Did he help finance it?
6. Rezko also has had close dealings with the state's governor, who has numerous federal and state investigation going on into his administration and personal dealings, is there not a culture of corruption among Illinois Democrats and how did that culture help you further political career?

That's a start, Janet, dear.

Littly Johnny D,
You cannot grasp this concept so let me try to get it thru to you one more time. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A RETIREMENT BENEFIT!!

"At one point, Obama called himself a "law professor" at the University of Chicago. Technically, he was a senior lecturer."

Wow - now that's picky ticky.

Little Johnny D,
1) the money has been returned or donated to charity
2)What dealings and relations are you referring to? You are making an accusation, can you back it up with facts and dates?
3) Anyone can answer this question for Obama so I don't know why you would include this SOFTBALL
4) What is this Meet The Press or Real Estate Monthly? Why is this important? No charges have been filed and Republicans are in charge of the Department of Justice.
5)You asked 4 questions in 1! I admire your tenacity but again no charges have been filed and unless you can show wrondoing who cares if the money was financed with Rezko's help. Did Rezko gain anything? Prove it.
6)Dumb question. Republicans and Democrats have betrayed the trust of voters in IL. That doesn't make Obama guilty of anything.

I regret to inform you that I do not believe you have what it takes to be a journalist Little Johnny D. Perhaps you should instead be an editor of a crappy trade magazine and live out your painful existence wasting your days as a cyberbully. Passing up opportunities to engage in intellectual and philisophical debates and instead reducing the interactions to hurling insults and outrageous comments to provoke someone to acknowledge you in sad attempt to hide your lonliness.

Really, Dumb Dumb Janet??? If Social Security is not a retirement benefit, then what is it, and why do I pay thousands of dollars a year for it and get a little card from the SS telling me how much I am going to get per month at age 67?

And, Dumb Dumb dear, please explain these links then:

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirement/

And, why Ms. Dumb Dumb does the SSA say this:

"The three major elements of your retirement portfolio are benefits from pensions, savings and investments, and Social Security benefits."

Janet, you are even more ignorant than I imagined. Very, very scary, Missy.

Not sure why my post at 2:38 pm came up as "Anonymous," but that would be me.

Posted by: John D | November 11, 2007 10:44 PM

Don't worry about it John. Nobody cares! Loser.

Littly Johnny D,
Social Security is pooled risk insurance to protect against total disability and also to protect from retiring in poverty. Thanks for playing.

Dumb Dumb Janet, you are wrong on all counts. SS is NOT a "pooled risk insurance." If that is the case, then my insurance plans more than handle whatever needs come up and let me invest that money on a paycheck-by-paycheck basis so I have lots more to enjoy my retirement with than the piffle I'll get from Social Security on a monthly basis.

And, so called junior high journalism teacher, Obama's dealings with Rezko are of importance, land dealings at significant savings and relationships with a man under investigation and indictment. If Obama truly is what he claims, then he has to come clean on his dealings with sleazy people.

But it' still "nice" to know you werdo losers have a fixation on me. Shows I get under your skin and, of course, you folks can't handle reality either.

But it' still "nice" to know you werdo losers have a fixation on me. Shows I get under your skin and, of course, you folks can't handle reality either.

Posted by: John D | November 12, 2007 2:50 PM

Mission accomplished miscreant. You annoy and amuse. Your childish rants only point out the vacant nature of the twisted views spouted in your insane comments. Your an insult to thinking adults everywhere. Proof that the republican party is litered with dead-enders. Rambling morons for whom follow the leader is the only game in town. Keep bringing the crazy Kool-Aid guzzler!

Privatize is the long-term solution. In order to do this, gov't spending must be decreased first. Fund those currectly and about to receive, but the benefits of those under 50 need to phased out and those just starting to pay into this generational ponzi scheme need to be stopped.

If people were allowed to invest their 12.4%, less an amount sent aside for workers comp insurance, would far surpass the returns on SS and therefore the wealth of the retiree would be much greater. In addition, any remaining wealth at time of death could be passed on to the next generation.

Janet - as far your "pooled risk insurance", their is a point to be made. Unfortuantely for you, you don't have the ability to make it. The risks of retirement and disability and at opposite ends of the spectrum and therefore should use the same funding mechanisms.

Social security is a blessing to many people who do not have the resources for "private" accounts. Mandatory contributions is the best way for them. In addition, privatization is tricky - corrupt CEO's, stock market crashes, political/economic influence on market behavior and/or bonds. With social security, it is what it is "secure" because it is an old age insurance for those who cannot afford that luxury. My remedy for the social security fund is to overhaul the administrative functions and monitor the distribution of funds to people who have never or minimally contributed into the fund such as recipients of SSI, and to increase the FICA contributions of those corporations and individuals who make an excessive amount of money -
i.e for individuals - in excess of $150,000; for corporations - in excess of $500,000 in profits, or for every $500,000, percentage increments.

You've heard of the concept of risk, haven't you, Terry? Some people do lose money investing.

Do we allow seniors who's investments didn't pan out to starve? What do we in the immediate wake of a serious downturn in the market? People need to eat daily, they can't wait a few years for things to pick back up.

A guaranteed level of subsistance for the elderly makes the types of growth investments we should all be making for our retirement much more feasible.

Obviously "the truth" hasn't studied business:

"privatization is tricky - corrupt CEO's, stock market crashes, political/economic influence on market behavior and/or bonds."

Allow the individual to purchase boad-base stock index funds, so putting the eggs in one bad basket doesn't happen - That will solve the "corrupt CEO".

Stock market crashes, political economic influence - show me what the worst 40 year return of the DJI has been. It has been good. Over a 40 yr period, the stock market has been a good steady performer. The long-term return of the market will decrease any volatility that the market generates over a "short-term period"

Finally, he must end it with a tax on those that generate the jobs in this country. That will spur economic growth.

AJF,

Do a little reading of Roger Ibbotson and learn about market returns.

As far as seniors, they should not have a large portion of their porttfolio in higher risk investments such as stocks. They will have grown their investment over 40 years (ages 25-65) so that when it is time to start using the wealth to live off on, they will have plenty of dough.

Simple concept AJF

I think most people here are wrong on social security. It's not intended to be a retirement account but a safety net/supplement to retirement, but it's also intended to be equitable towards the rich and poor alike. That's why people who contribute more get a higher benefit, and that's the way FDR and the Democratic congress of that time designed it. The benefit is supposed to correspond to the amount you pay in. There is a cap on the tax, because there is a cap on the benefit as well. That seemed fair to liberal democrats then, but I guess we've gotten more liberal. The idea of private accounts is not really a Republican or conservative idea, it's just a good idea. It's forced savings without the ability to withdraw, thereby securing retirement. All it's doing is saying that the government can't spend your money. Private accounts can be formed without the option of investing in stocks as well. The key to a workable system for private accounts is that, as an easy example, for the wealthy 1/2 of your FICA tax would go into your account, and the other 1/2 would go to pay benefits for the less fortunate. I win because I don't have to worry about the government spending ALL my money (only 1/2 of it), and the less fortunate win because they get half my money. I'm in favor of them. There's just been a propaganda war against them by the democrats who didn't want Bush to have a victory. I'm independent by the way, so no agenda here, just a little common sense.

Seems like internet blogs get polarized to the point oof absurdity. Both sides are right. Soc Sec is a retirement benefit and disability insurance program, Basically it was for keeping elderly or disabled people from abject poverty. Consider if your souse has a stroke and gets violent due to brain injury. State psychiatric hospital costs? ~$1000/day.SSA covers for 90 days. Afterwards: Medicaid, when you've spent a;a large portion of your rwtirement savingsI know once well-off couple now in this condition

In hind sight, seems funny someone asking for this interview to "be objective; after watching the anchors of all three major media outlets follow Obama overseas!