It’s the media’s fault, not Obama’s, but it’s maddening that he gets to have it both ways. On the one hand he gets to protest that it’s not fair to judge his performance, in the sense of drawing long-term conclusions, after a mere 100 days (which is true), but on the other he has a cheerleading squad out there in the form of the press proclaiming these to be the best 100 days in human history (which is about as far from the truth as it’s possible to get).

The “100 Days” thing was probably only relevant once before – in FDR’s first term.  Since then, it’s been nothing more than a media excuse for something to broadcast and snutter about when there’s not much else that’s newsworthy going on.

And, naturally, if the media are going to make a B-I-G thing of it – - ANYBODY (who was smart) in office would use the occasion to try to generate the specific spin that it preferred be disseminated among the general public.

I agree with Gibbs.  The alleged “milestone” exists only in the mind of the media.

And we all know how NON-dismissive, forthright and genuinely concerned for factual correctness Gibbs is..

Gibbs is truly a disgrace. He continues to engage in deeply divisive partisanship and then acts offended when called out… he is very much like the “little-punk wanna-be” that knew he had a “big brother” just around the corner. Unbelievably, not everything is about partisanship. Sometimes it’s about doing what’s right without MAKING SURE YOU HAVE to get Credit.  Real leaders understand, eventually the truth always shines through.

The projection of aura “we won and do whatever we wish..” is staring to wear thin… an he might do well to remember… in the homeland eventually the American people really are “the kings at home” we do not expect to “bowed to” but we command respect.

Re: Post 3;

Gibbs is NO different than ANY other presidential press secretary.  They all MANAGE the information they’re disseminating in ways that they feel benefit their employer/administration – AND – BY DEFINITION – the job description itself presumes “partisanship” – of the same type evidenced by ANY paid press agent, public relations person, or publicity agent.

And your statement:

“… eventually the truth always shines through …”

So – - is that what’s happening now, re: Bush-Cheney “interrogation techniques” and the development of various “not necessarily true” rationales for invading Iraq???  Are some of the very real misrepresentations made by ALL four of Bush’s press secretaries now coming to light?

You’re just spinning your own partisanship.

My narrative was “spinning nothing”. The my statement are outright observations..and factually correct, (by your own admission).

If the information was “spun” one could offer definite rebuttal. Simply attempting to point an actions of another as some from of predicate or justification is hardly demonstrative of anything.

I would argue that “managing information” as you phrase is in reality spinning… and not the same as accurate dissemination. 

But then you avoided the primary intent of the text—which was the substantive part.

regards

Re: Post 5;

I fully agree with the following comment in the article above:

“Robert Gibbs downplayed the coming milestone of President Obama’s first 100 days in office, dismissing it as a “Hallmark Holiday”.”

And, my only other point is that you can believe that “Gibbs is a disgrace” if you so choose – BUT – I am also free to believe he is no better/no worse than most presidential press secretaries – and he is CERTAINLY “no worse” than the preceding four people who held that job.

Well gosh!!!!! that is something… to be “no worse” than the last four before you… what a milestone!!!!! So much for “Change you can believe in.”  And some would ask..who does the American govt at the way it does!!!!

Re: Post 7;

In case you hadn’t noticed, Jer, there was ‘a change’!  A whole bunch of Republicans running the country were replaced by a whole bunch of Democrats running the country – and judging by the election results – it would have been hard for that ‘change’ to be much bigger than it was!

And, in the end, it’s Obama (his employer) and the White House press corps (his clients) whose assessment of Gibbs matters.  And – the press secretary is, first and foremost, a public relations person for the people for whom he or she works.  Most of them are pretty similar in their job performance – because the job is a pretty cut-and-dried job, done mostly by-the-numbers.

Get it?

TK:

Can I get you some more cool-aid? Least this spiral into another one of your circular Diatribic discussions let end this ..you can even have the last post.

You are so emotionally invested in your position any attempt at intellectual exchange of idea “..and he is CERTAINLY “no worse” than the preceding four people who held that job. ” or such pedantic dribble ..“there is change” that it fundamentally ignores the meaning of the phrase.

Re: Post 9;

Your statement:

“You are so emotionally invested in your position any attempt at intellectual exchange of idea “..and he is CERTAINLY “no worse” than the preceding four people who held that job. ” or such pedantic dribble ..“there is change” that it fundamentally ignores the meaning of the phrase.”

Just read your statement again, Jer.  Do you have any idea what you’re trying to say?  I sure don’t.

Let’s make a deal: I won’t address any more comments to you nor point out any more of your indecipherable statements (like the one presented above) – and you do the same for me.  Deal?