lol

Is it me or does it look like Obama leaned in for a hug at 44 seconds in? Maybe they ended up hugging it out.

Government officials differ in opinion everyday including ending up on different sides of lawsuits. Arizona sued the Federal government over the border issue and the Obama administration sued Arizona. Obama did NOT sue Jan Brewer, and to pretend like it is the same as a personal suit is ridiculous. She isn't personally responsible for the outcome and won't be personally liable for any damages. She isn't being sued for anything. As a governor, her name gets used as the official face of our state. If she can't handle that, and it leads to her wagging her finger in the face of visiting dignitaries, then she needs to get a grip. It's not the reason behind all of this anway.

The key word here is undocumented. When you try to bypass immigration laws when entering the country it only ends up convoluting the whole process of trying to stay in the country for the immigrant. Changes to the process are on the horizon though, so we shall see....



ETA-

President Obama speaks about the encounter-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...of-proportion/

The President is supposed to find a smooth way to rectify and silence the situation. Gates-Cromley-Beer, anyone? Obama-Trump, anyone? The President did not publicly respond to the "you lie" incident because it spoke for itself and the President's silence was golden in that instance.

They can "change the story" now to silence the incident but...okaayyyyyyy...I still see a pointed finger.

Well, it's just been confirmed beyond a doubt as to who has class in this mess. Brewer's been running her mouth about how President Obama "disrespected" her by walking away from her.

Really? He was supposed to let her scold him? She just has the worst manners ever. Not only in this situation, but in the majority of situations where she's called upon to act in a manner consistent with the office she holds.

I want there to be a rogue cameraperson who will defy orders and release the full footage of the exchange. All the public has is the handshake footage and photos of the pointed finger.

Where is a rogue cameraperson when you need one?

I know...I know...going rogue is counter to what I have been saying about respecting the President and having proper security.

I just read the governor's wiki entry. She sounds classy. :rolleyes:

The vitriol directed at the President really seems unprecedented. During the Bush years, we were all just content to call Bush a dumbass. Now, it's in style to be seen being physically aggressive towards a sitting POTUS?

Forgive my (youthful) ignorance, but how recent of a phenomenon is the political pundit? I'm sure they have existed in one form or another for many years, but it seems that they've come out in full force recently (both sides of the aisle). I think our dependence on the internet has helped them spread like wildfires and I don't like it.

Oh, and the race thing too.

This is sort of like saying Phil Knight is suing Reebok for patent infringement. It's correct in the sense that Obama is head of the Executive branch, but it seems fairly reductionist.

After all, in another stilted sense, you and I are suing Jan Brewer.

Punditry has existed forever - I mean, depending on how you frame it, the Federalist Papers were pretty explicitly political commentary/punditry.

I think the difference is in the stances/angles/attitudes taken by those pundits. Compare somebody like old boy George Will with more current models ... and yes, I picked Will because he's boring as hell.

Yeah ... I mean, there's one obvious difference in this Presidency, and while discourse may have deteriorated over time (there's an element of "communication changing" that muddies the subjective elements), it kind of fails Occam's Razor to assume the largest changes were coincidental to inauguration, by chance.

Is Phil Knight suing Reebok? No, it would be Nike who would be suing right? But if Phil Knight is the CEO of Nike and is the one who made the call to sue and demanded his lawyers file a patent infringement lawsuit against Reebok where does the difference lay?

And since neither of us have any input or control of who the DOJ chooses to go after, no its not the same.

Saying "Obama sued ____" implies a level of control Obama doesn't have.

He can likely push for an action, and can probably kill a given action if he chooses as the guy at the 'top of the pile', but he certainly can't do any of that without the DOJ's backing and vetting of the case ... he's at 'best' a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Likely, his day-to-day interactions with the DOJ are similar to Phil Knight's over his legal department - which is to say, oversight, but not direct management.

It's not really a major issue - you're more right than wrong, but the language is a bit strong and might be taken to imply something more about Obama himself. I think it's pushing it to say it was "Obama" as if it were him and him alone.

EDIT: I just realized that the disconnect might be coming from the military ... people often say "Bush invaded Iraq" or similar, to shorthand standing as CIC, and I didn't even consider you might be making that kind of connection, so my bad. I still think that the role of the President in relation to the DOJ (as I understand it) is different, especially given the nature of the title of Commander in Chief and the ceremony and etc. that comes with it, as well as the nature of foreign policy. I well may be wrong.

I didn't mean that they were the same ... but the logic could be contorted to be similar. After all, Obama is "in charge" of the DOJ, and the DOJ represents the interests of the American people with their explicit consent to do so.

This argument is probably a win/win for both President Obama and whatshername. He gets to be seen as above the fray, elegant in confrontation and, well, presidential. And she gets to seen as confrontational, aggressive, not afraid of some black guy standing in front of her and without any need for the finer graces in her life. So they're both speaking to their base. Not that it was planned. Even I'm not that cynical.

Please tell me she's not a sorority woman.

If this situation is as negative as it's being reported, I'm not sure her affiliation (or lack thereof) is relevant.