Jann Wenner’s new Rolling Stone interview with President Obama is online:
The president was more somber than in our past interviews – and less inclined to depart from the handful of themes he had been concentrating on in recent weeks. He avoided discussing Mitt Romney, even when asked a direct question, and focused primarily on the very real constraints he operates under as president, from the intransigence of Congress to the dilemma of America’s anti-drug laws. He also seemed intent on summing up the arguments he’ll soon be taking out on the campaign trail, making clear that he plans to run on his remarkable record of accomplishments: extending health insurance to 32 million Americans, staving off a major economic collapse, rescuing the auto industry, reforming student loans, ending discrimination against gay soldiers, pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, killing Osama bin Laden, and passing one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history…
One snippet that’s probably gonna cause some heartburn on the internets:
Do you read Paul Krugman?
I read all of the New York Times columnists. Krugman’s obviously one of the smartest economic reporters out there, but I also read some of the conservative columnists, just to get a sense of where those arguments are going. There are a handful of blogs, Andrew Sullivan’s on the Daily Beast being an example, that combine thoughtful analysis with a sampling of lots of essays that are out there. The New Yorker and The Atlantic still do terrific work. Every once in a while, I sneak in a novel or a nonfiction book.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
so, can the president sweep the sullys just by praising andrew sullivan?
Pat In Massachusetts
Andrew Fking Sullivan. Good God!
It’s thoughtful of Obama to keep up with reports of his genetic inferiority.
Oh sure, but when Sarah Palin says she reads all the papers, she’s an idiot. You libruls are all hypocrites!!!
Oh boy, now more puffery from nyt pundtwits. Just what we needed.
Guess wapo pundtwits will now go hammer and tongs at him.
rupie says the extent of hacking at his newspapers was hidden from him: “Someone took charge of a cover-up”
I wonder who it could be.
Well you can hardly expect him to admit his first pleasure every morning is logging on to ‘Balloon Juice’, can you?
@Ken_L: Ha! I think we’ve uncovered the secret identity of our resident right-wing troll…
@Ken_L: who will be more pissed off, john or dougj?
Christ, theres your fucking problem right there. Andy can’t do thoughtful to save his life. I hope he was just pandering & doesn’t actually believe that bullshit.
The Sullivan shout-out is intellectually offensive, but it’s probably good strategy. God knows he loves being stroked, and the President’s not going to win swing votes by stating a dislike for the villagers in the center.
He’s a politician.
I figure he’s identified Andrew Sullivan as tactically important, and vulnerable to fluffing.
Plus, isn’t Sullivan gay? Very deft, I think. Even if he can’t split Sullivan off from the repubs, he can probably have them go all shark-attack on the guy. Win/win.
Good heavens, the man is campaigning. He has to stroke a lot of bloated egos.
BBC – Hague war crimes court finds ex-Liberia president Charles Taylor guilty of war crimes in Sierra Leone
The Economist – World wide confidence in Obama vs shrub is striking.
Somebody’s really got to introduce this President Obama guy to Balloon Juice.
Guess josh marshall has gone full rw now ?
Today’s tweet – Are Democrats afraid of Marco Rubio?
Sheeesh. Why does anyone think latinos are in love with this cuban?
The headline on of the stories in our local paper was “James Murdoch blames underlings for hacking inquiry”
Do they not realize how they come off? They’re like cartoon rich people.
@kay: I watched it teh live teevee. His arrogance rivals only that of darth. Two most evil human turds in the world. I still expect both the father and son will go scot-free. Even the fucking judge was laughing it up with this pig.
@Baud: I think we’ve uncovered the secret identity of our President, right-wing troll…
So you’re saying the Prez tied a rope around Sullivan’s neck and staked him in the wilderness?
Relax, everyone. That rolled off his tongue just like a prepared debate response should. He and his staff probably read lines of Sully out loud to each other for laughs during the morning briefing, and they print out pages of the Beast to keep the executive loo well stocked.
I know krugman has mentioned this blog a couple of times. I wonder if anyone from the white house has ever clicked on those links?
Murdoch’s face at the last inquiry ( I didn’t watch thus one) was just a study in self-pity. He’s wallowing in it.
He looked like a giant, wrinkly 5 year old in a time out for bad behavior.
@Egg Berry: Lord, I hope not. Attention FBI dudes: we didn’t mean it.
@Narcissus: Really. That thing with that guy in Belize? It was Rusty and Danny, I had nothing to do with it.
The publication/columnist reference Obama made that raised my eyebrows more than the Sullivan one was Obama’s praise of the Atlantic…which of course has McMegan as its economic editor. True, there are lots of other regular contributors to the Atlantic, but geez louise…how’s he going to learn where the “arguments are going” if she’s one of the conservative economic commentators he consults for that purpose? That’s like trying to navigate using a plate of spaghetti made out of silly putty.
Sullivan’s reaction wouldn’t count as ‘preening’, by any chance?
Could have been worse, I suppose. He could have said Megan McArdle.
Still, how awesome would it have been if it’d been Digby.
I know Delong links here regularly, and Krugman links to Delong regularly; it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility. To the logsheets!
So the Prez likes to read Sullivan – so what? I like to go to the zoo.
Oh he reads them just like we do. Then he comes here and mocks them.
I bet he goes by El Tiburn or McClaren when he posts here, but he could be little boots.
The contrast between Bush and Obama is shocking.
@Patricia Kayden: But not surprising. There are very good reasons Obama was awarded a “pre-emptive” Nobel Peace Prize.
That does it, I’m voting for Romney!
that after the Romney is the candidate of success? It really kills me. Josh used to be a thoughtful kind of guy.
Villago Delenda Est
What? Obambi doesn’t read Balloon Juice?
That’s it. Impeach his ass for Presidentin’ while ignoring us.
Villago Delenda Est
I do believe you’re on to something.
I can just see Sullivan’s face light up with the knowledge that Obama might read him regularly. However, I’m not sure if it’s quite what Sully imagines is going on.
All class. This man is all class. What a polite way of phrasing ‘Know thy enemy.’
Villago Delenda Est
The Rmoneys are probably taking notes.
@cmorenc: Ta Nehesi Coates and James Fallows write there too. And the journalism is often excellent. I suspect he ignores McMegan much as all but the few who read her so they can mock her do.
Let’s just throw this into the mix
I’m too lazy to search through his archives to see if he ever apologized for his McCaughey TNR run. For those who are unaware, Sully edited TNR.
“McCaughey expanded her op-eds into a five-page article titled “No Exit”, that appeared as the cover story in The New Republic (TNR) and was published a few days before President Clinton’s 1994 State of the Union address. An internal memo by tobacco company Philip Morris, dated March 1994, indicated that representatives of Philip Morris had collaborated with McCaughey when she was writing “No Exit”, stating: “Worked off-the-record with Manhattan and writer Betsy McCaughey as part of the input to the three-part exposé in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you. The first part detailed specifics of the plan.” (When the memo was discussed in a 2009 story in the Rolling Stone, McCaughey declined to comment.)”
Lord knows he hasn’t for Charles Murray.
You’re new here, aren’t you? :)
The prez had to name some right wing columnist just to seem even-handed. If any of you were put in that position what conservative columnist would you name?
Just Some Fuckhead
Most Amazing President or Best President Ever? I go back and forth and this latest revelation is pretty indicative of one or the other. Campaigning genius, world-class ego stroker, brilliant tactician, all are clearly wedged between the lines of Obama’s brief and hopelessly misguided comments.
Sorry, I don’t think so.
Sullivan mentioned once, a few weeks or months ago, that he met Obama at the White House during a party. They had a conversation where they talked about Sully’s blog. The President really does read The Dish.
The worst part is this means we’ll NEVER get rid of that Tory twit.
I read Sullivan too to guage what shallow idiots think of things. Give Obama credit: Sullivan is a great barometer of what uninformed schmucks, the vast majority of the population, thinks.
Person of Choler
That wasn’t an interview, it was a hum job.
I wonder what newspapers and blogs Romney has people read and summarize to him?
Well, there are some very good ones, but there’s also Jeffrey Goldberg.
I don’t read them too often, but they seem very good. The few times I’ve read Robert Wright recently on Israel/Palestine stuff he seemed very reasonable, unlike 99.9% of the rest of the media.
Imagine the rage of The Mustache for not getting tapped… he will need an extra long taxi ride to work this one off.
He said he reads Sully and others. Reading doesn’t mean agreeing. Reading means just that. But if you want to take great offense because he reads Andrew Sullivan go right ahead. And if you notice he said thoughtful analysis. It’s a polite sentiment. And he said that Krugman was the smart one.
@Middlewest:*snerk* Thanks for getting me to blow coffee through my nose. Well done.
Culture of Truth
to the fainting couch!
I guess I must be an incurable Obot, because I immediately thought that he must be reading Ta-Nehisi Coates and James Fallows at the Atlantic, not McMegan.
The one area that Obama sucks on (OK, the main one to me) is his allowing the Feds to go after Medical Cannabis. Yea Obama tries to weasle his way out of what he has done but he’s clearly bullshitting all of us. This is one area where the right’s call of ‘Obama Lies’ is more factual than not.
I can’t figure what he thinks this gets him. It makes no sense to me but then again, I’m a nobody as far as they are concerned.
Villago Delenda Est
@Culture of Truth:
Well, keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. That sort of thing.
Also, he needs the LULZ. That’s why he reads The Daily Beast.
Obama should stick to a steady diet of Krugman, Krugman and more Krugman. The guy has been right about 99% of everything economic (and political) since 2000. And he’s still right about, say, the fact that public employment under Obama has cratered and cost us a million+ jobs.
God, I hate the misbegotten idea that the diametrically opposite idea of a really good idea might have some merit and not be totally wrongheaded just because it is diametrically opposite to the good idea. That is the one trait in Obama that I wish he would lose forever. That and reading Sully (symptom of the same disease, I suppose).
Ah, well. Ain’t no perfect presidents, to be sure.
@Mike E: hah! Expect a third party column again any day now
@tomvox1: The administration is very cognizant of Krugman’s opinion. Before releasing their jobs bill to the public last year, they sent a copy to Krugman.
As for the public job losses, that is confined almost entirely to state and local government(70% republican controlled). Even if Obama could get state funding through congress, there is no guarantee the shitty republican governors would actually use it to rehire teachers, cops, etc.
He’s been right about most important things, but he’s hardly been right 99% of the time. (I say this as a big Krugman fan.) Two examples:
(1) He said it’s theoretically impossible for the futures price of oil to influence the spot price of oil. While this is a pretty controversial topic, AFAICT his analysis is shallow and wrong, due to the complicated structure of the so-called spot market.
(2) His preferred solution to the financial crash was a Swedish-style temporary nationalization. That would have been better than what we got, but AFAICT it would involve zero haircuts for bondholders, which would make it more expensive, would be unjust, and would allow for moral hazard (at least on the part of people who lend money to financial institutions).
Of course, the thing he was most right on was that (a) the stimulus package wasn’t big enough, (b) there’d be only one bite at the apple. That’s one where the voices within the Obama admin clearly had different (and incorrect) opinions.
Wow, what a putz.
I think I will vomit now.
This is a very good interview, highly recommend despite the dispiriting shout out to the gay male version of Peggy Noonan.
Oh gosh no: President Obama would never do that. Change!
Does it please you to imagine so?
Well, Krugman reads BJ, so there’s that
I’m rolling my eyes at some of the hysterics around here. I’m as left as they come and I read Andrew Sullivan sometimes too just like John Cole and DougJ do. If Sullivan’s blogging about something stupid then I skip past it but he does link to some interesting articles on science and religion.
Reading doesn’t mean agreeing. I guess the fascination with Sully is that on some topics he seems like a reasonable guy and on other topics it’s like reading about an alien. But that makes sense. He wouldn’t be a conservative if we agreed on everything. And he seems less batshit crazy than any other conservative columnist I can think of. He actually does call out conservative bullshit. Of course at other times he’s the one sprouting conservative bullshit so I guess it evens out.
Also, he’s probably one of the few conservative writers who supports Obama. Should the President read the screechings of Erick Erickson instead?
The President also watches Jon Stewart. Do people want to complain about that too?
I do. Obviously, the Colbert Report is far superior. Should spend more time on that show.
If it would motivate the CIA to start making hits on Redstate members, yes.
Okay, fine, I admit it: