Also from the Times report:

Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, said there could be value in distributing books about American politics and the people who make up political institutions.

“Compared to big-ticket items like embassy construction, buying books may not show up as a huge warning on taxpayers’ radar screens, but there is always room for improvement and making sure programs like this are serving a good, intended purpose,” he said.

According to CBS News’ Mark Knoller, Jay Carney “told reporters on AF-1 that US Embassies abroad decided that giving the books would help advance American foreign policy interests,” and that “”It was an embassy-based decision.”

Fox News reported on the story earlier, before Carney’s gaggle, and pointed to a statement by a State Department spokesman that, like Carney, noted that these decisions were made by the embassies themselves, based on interest from locals, and that the White House had nothing to do with them.

Here’s the report, from Fox News’ America’s Newsroom:

Carney downplayed the issue, calling it media “catnip,” but reporters continued to press Carney over whether the scheduling snafu was a sign of poor communication.

The other consistent theme of the day was a continued effort to get Carney to reveal more about next week’s speech, so his answers are well-represented in the first few questions from CNN’s Athena Jones, and ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.

CNN’s Athena Jones asked Carney for specifics on the “bipartisan” measures that the President plans to present in next week’s joint session, and whether the White House had specific reason to believe that they would get support on the Hill. Carney declined to provide a tick-tock, except to say that the President “consulted widely, as he always does.”

Jones then asked Carney what the President’s reaction to the scheduling kerfuffle had been, and Carney responded, “I spent a great deal of time with him this morning, and it never came up,” then paused before saying, “Honestly.”

CBS News’ Mark Knoller then joked that perhaps Carney wasn’t asking the right questions, to which Carney responded, “I know you guys love this stuff, I know it’s catnip, but we’re really not focused on it.”

ABC’s Jonathan Karl then hit upon a theme that would run throughout the briefing, that Speaker Boehner’s public refusal of the President’s request was an indication of the administration’s dysfunction. “You can’t even get the Congress to agree on a date for the speech without a political sideshow,” Karl began, “How can the American people expect you to do something much more difficult, come up with a jobs plan, dealing with the deficit?”

Carney responded, “Because the sideshows don’t matter, the economy matters. The American people matter. Jobs matter.”

He went on to repeat the hope that members of Congress would return from their break chastened by constituents into being more cooperative, the exact notion that Boehner’s actions belied yesterday. He also explained, for the first time of many at this briefing, that the original date was selected as the soonest possible date that the President could address returning Congressmen, and that the President chose a joint session because his proposals will require Congressional action.

Here’s the clip, from C-Span:

That answer probably sounded really good in rehearsal, but it went over like the runner-up in a balsa wood pole-vaulting competition.

CBS Radio correspondent Mark Knoller cut in, incredulously, “Questions are a circus?,” after which Chip Reid asked, “Are you telling us we can’t ask questions?”

Carney responded, “He did a 70-minute press conference last week, he had a 45-minute press conference 3 hours before people walked in…”

Reid interjected, “So that exhausted everything that we could ask him about?”

“No,” Carney responded, “the President will certainly take questions again, but they have work to do, so this isn’t a matter of…”

“For the record,” an annoyed Reid continued, “it’s absurd for you to say that we can’t ask questions when we go in there with a camera.”

“I’m not saying that, Chip, you had questions that day…”

Reid interrupts, “And we’re not allowed to ask more questions?”

“You certainly are,” Carney said, trailing off. “I’m just saying we’re doing a photo spray today. Still photo.”

Disgusted, Reid concluded, “Well, it’s an absurd reason, to say that, because we asked questions, you’re not going to allow cameras in there.”

ABC News’ Jake Tapper chimed in, “(The President) is perfectly capable of ignoring our questions. He does it all the time.”

It wasn’t over yet, though. Later in the briefing, another reporter told Carney it seemed that cameras would not be allowed because “reporters misbehaved,” and that “it sounds like you’re punishing us.”

“…Different meetings have different levels of access,” Carney explained, “and we do it on a case-by-case basis…The President has taken questions quite a lot lately, as you know, and so he’s not taking questions today. He may tomorrow. Or he may later, you know, but today, we’re just doing a still spray, which is not unprecedented. We have done them in a lot of meetings.

Carney fell back on his own experience as a journalist, playing the “I was one of you” card, saying “I used to be where you are, it’s fine to shout questions, but not every occasion are we going to have a full pool in a meeting.”

Here’s the clip, from C-Span:

Of course, if shouting questions really is “fine,” then he wouldn’t have brought it up. As a former member of our ranks, Carney certainly does understand, and it probably is fine with him, but the fact that he mentioned it, seemingly off-script, might indicate that the question-shouting melee had been discussed among the staff.

It might interest some reporters to know that Carney’s predecessor, Robert Gibbs, actually did once encourage us to shout questions at President Obama. We all got a good laugh out of that one, which underscores the warmth that normally greets the occasional hollered query.

The White House press corps has been fighting a constant battle over access, but if the price of access is silence, well, we’re all happy to turn out our pockets and show that we’re fresh out of that. The White House, for it’s part, would understandably like to avoid scenes like this, at the signing of the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act:

They’re not the first to make the mistake, and weren’t the last, but in an amusing twist, former/future Countdown host Keith Olbermann called out Fox 40′s gaffe…right after he made the very same error (since corrected).


Lucky for Olbermann, his critique of Sacramento Fox affiliate KTXL‘s gaffe was relatively gentle:

Lastly, you can’t stop them, you can only hope to contain them. This twitpic from ESPN Chicago correspondent Sarah Spain appears to have come from the Fox affiliate in Sacramento. Sigh.

Even the normally impeccable Mark Knoller of CBS Radio goofed in a tweet late Sunday night, saying “Surprised if Hollywood types not up late putting together deals for a movie on the ‘Raid on Obama,’” later noting the error by saying “Forgive the typo. ‘raid on Osama.’”

This gaffe is as inevitable as it is unfortunate, and it dates back to Barack Obama’s emergence onto the national stage. Although liberals are suspicious when a conservative commits the flub, no less a liberal giant than the late Sen. Ted Kennedy has also made the mistake. In other words, it happens to the best of us.

I can’t be certain, but I don’t think I’ve ever let one slip out, although I have had to correct many an “Obasma” or “Obsama” in my years as a political journalist. I can also confess to having actually rehearsed against such a gaffe before radio appearances. “Osama bin Laden. Barack Obama.”

Such are the perils of living in a country that admirably doesn’t hold the quirks of your name against you, giving hope to the “Agolf Hidlers” of the world that, if they do everything else right, they, too, can be elected president.

According to a source within the WHCA, the demand for tickets to this year’s dinner was at an all-time high, with 360 requests for tables submitted, out of only 262 available tables. The demand was so high that some dues-paying members of the Association weren’t even able to get a single seat, although the source says these were all organizations that only signed up recently. “We can’t have people joining just so they can go to the dinner.”

The WHCA accepts applications, and checks, for whatever the number of seats requested, then divvies them up according to several factors. WHCA board members get first dibs, followed by those organizations which participate most heavily in pool coverage, and those that travel most frequently with the President. This can lead to some unhappy campers, as World Net Daily‘s 2010 lawsuit illustrates. WND requested three tables to fete correspondent Les Kinsolving, but was only granted two tickets. Kinsolving, the second most senior correspondent, will not be attending this year.

Of those members who do get to attend, many have had to scale back their own guest list to accommodate larger outlets, who can lock up as many as seventeen seats, many for non-press interlopers like Justin Bieber, Alec Baldwin, and Bristol Palin. While not the most egalitarian approach, such star wattage helps to make the dinner a buzzworthy affair.

For the workhorses who actually cover the White House, the dinner is something of a mixed bag. CBS radio’s Mark Knoller, a Twitter superstar and leading contender for Press Corps “Dean,” relishes the “chance to see old friends and colleagues,” but in addition to the perpetual nightmare of parking in DC, doesn’t care for “the Golden Globes aspect of the dinner. Unless I get Anne Hathaway to be my guest.”

Mother Jones‘ David Corn isn’t a big fan of the overcrowding, or the strained availability of tickets. Asked why he thinks the dinner is such a hot ticket for celebs, Corn theorizes, “Their lives are empty and meaningless? Or could it be the food?”

Perhaps the toughest cookie in the press corps, AURN’s April Ryan, looks forward to the dinner as a welcome reward for hard work. “It is really like a break after a continual study for what seems like a masters degree that never comes. We have to know every topic daily in a matter of minutes, and then pepper the President and/or administration officials for answers that matter to the public.”

For Ryan, the worst thing about the dinner is the “curse” of a glamorous night. “About 5 thousand people are packed into very small rooms for pre receptions trying to make it down the hall without getting your gown stepped on, or stepping on another fabulous creation.”

She doesn’t see a problem with the megawatt guest list, either. “Since I have been covering the White House for the past 14 years, it has alway been a major deal for politics and Hollywood to meet,” she says. “They follow us and we follow them. It seems like the natural order of things to me.”

Ryan doesn’t agree with critics of the dinner’s glitzier aspects, and notes the positive effects of such luminaries on the coverage of the dinner. “People come me out in large groups and wait in the Hotel lobby to see their favorite celebrity, and all the entertainment cameras are there, and the event is being aired on C-SPAN.  And, has anyone stopped to think some of the celebrities may actually have a connection with some Correspondents?”

Progressive radio host Bill Press, part of the “Professional Left” clique (along with Corn) in the briefing room, sees the dinner as a unique opportunity. “Last year, I met Joy Behar. I’m a huge fan. Since then, I’ve been on her show several times, and she’s been on mine. Great networking!”

Not every celeb sighting is a joy, though. Press’least favorite part of the event is “running into total jerks who don’t belong there and should never have been invited, like Donald Trump. I also don’t like seeing people I otherwise admire make whores out of themselves by inviting jerks like Donald Trump.”

Inevitably, events like these lead to criticisms that the press corps is “too cozy” with the administration it covers. Knoller allows that “In some cases, the criticism is right on target,” but others, like Corn, scoff at the idea.

“It’s very difficult to be cozy in a room full of 3000 people,” Corn begins. “In other words, I don’t think the media swallowed the Bush administration’s bogus case for war in Iraq because once a year reporters shared an evening in a cavernous ballroom with a handful of government officials who misrepresented intelligence to push a phony argument for the invasion.”

Huffington Post’s Jon Ward, late of The Daily Caller and The Daily, thinks the criticism is just overblown. “I like parties,” he says. “Parties are good. People who get all tense about parties maybe need to go to more of them.”

Press sees the criticism as sour grapes. “Those who criticize dinner as administration getting too cozy with media are those who couldn’t score a ticket,” Press says, adding, “Frankly, I’d rather see more people from administration and fewer from soap operas.”

If anything, the dinner is a demonstration of how much each White House needs the press corps, not the other way around.

The ever-increasing celebrity glare is both a blessing and a curse, raising the dinner’s profile, and with it, that of the work done by the press corps, but also diluting the journo-centric vibe of the event. Hopefully, a beneficial balance will be struck, but at the very least, we hope that folks remember this event the next time someone tries to suggest that we ain’t got no reason to live. No ticket for you!

“He speaks with authority for the President,” Knoller continues, and says, hitting a theme that several of our colleagues touched on, “(Jay) is careful not to say more than he knows.”

I also asked Knoller the biggest difference between Gibbs’ tenure and Carney’s, to which he replied, “The pastel ties are gone.”

The West Wing Report’s Paul Brandus says it’s “encouraging that Jay is briefing almost every day. I think after awhile, Gibbs got kind of tired of it,…maybe Jay will cut back, but it’s encouraging that he’s briefing so often now.”

Brandus notes that, while Carney is calling on more people, “I don’t think he’s actually saying more than Gibbs did…(Carney) doesn’t reveal a great deal of information.”

There’s another big difference between Carney and Gibbs, according to Brandus. “Gibbs was a longtime confidant of the President’s, while Carney is not, so he has to build that relationship (with Obama), and that will take a fair amount of time, so there’s a learning and growing curve.

“His mastery of issues…” Brandus pauses, diplomatically. “He comes out with this big, thick briefing book, and he’s always looking things up…he’s being very careful. Gibbs never really had to do that. Maybe Jay’s just being extra-careful, or maybe he’s still getting up to speed on some of the nuance of some of the policy issues. But Gibbs rarely had to come out with props, and Jay has to.”

Brandus also points out that Carney’s caution is well-founded. “What he says in that briefing can move financial markets, and literally impact matters of war and peace.”

One veteran print correspondent echoed expectations that Carney would suffer by comparison to Gibbs’ strong ties with the President. “He has good days and bad, but frankly, on his good days, he’s better at the podium than I ever expected him to be. Especially when you consider the incredible run of news he’s had to deal with, it’s your basic baptism by fire. This would be true of anyone, but Jay just doesn’t have the access that Gibbs did, he and Obama went back so far, (as a result) he speaks with less authority than Gibbs did.”

Carney gets high marks from reporters for a more egalitarian approach to doling out the questions. Christi Parsons, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Tribune newspaper, says “The questions are better because there are so many more of them. The foreign press and the reporters outside the first three rows pose a more diverse range of questions, and their perspectives and areas of expertise make for a different kind of back-and-forth.”

But the big boys and girls are still getting their licks in, Parsons says. “The front rows are aggressive in an important way, and they get answers that benefit a lot of viewers and readers, but I don’t think they’re getting short shrift under the new order.”

While Carney is seen by most as “spreading the wealth” more equitably than his predecessor, not everyone is quite satisfied. Progressive radio host Bill Press told me, “Jay, understandably, started out a little shaky, but has gained self-confidence and greater command of podium. I’d give him solid B so far. As (a) back-bencher, my only complaint is that he must not let big feet in front rows continue to pose endless string of same questions. Better for everybody when he moves faster.”

What I find most remarkable about Carney’s eventful first month is that, despite a jam-packed string of news cycles, Carney has managed to keep his name out of the headlines, and basically not make any news. While that’s partially a good thing, since press secretaries making news isn’t always a good thing, Carney’s strictly on-message approach does carry with it the risk of rendering the post, and the daily press briefings, even less relevant. Maybe that’s the point, or at least it seems that way from the Jay Carney highlight reel that Politico put together:

On that count, WWR boasts a roster of followers that includes political heavy-hitters, media insiders, big-time journalists, and the odd celebrity. The website Klout.com ranks West Wing Report‘s influence in a tie for 5th place with Jake Tapper and Politico, trailing only a handful of big news sites like CNN.

Part of the genius of West Wing Report is the lack of emphasis on its one-man-band creator, in favor of content that is made for Twitter, and Twitter alone. It’s a canny strategy which recognizes that personalities come and go, but a trusted brand (CNN, Fox News) endures. Early on, this shift in emphasis led to an almost Keyser Soze-like mystique, as many of my Twitter followers, and some of my White House colleagues, wanted to know “Who is West Wing Report?”

My own observation of Paul Brandus is that he’s a ubiquitous, hard-working presence in the White House briefing room, and he’s always got his ear to the ground. Obviously, it takes a hell of a forward-thinker to make the kind of leap to a new platform that Brandus has, but he executes it using good old-fashioned shoe leather reporting, and a hint of dry wit.

If you don’t already, I highly recommend that you follow West Wing Report on Twitter, and cast your vote for WWR in this year’s Shorty Awards. In the meantime, check out West Wing Report’s answers to our 5 quick questions:

1. After so many years in dinosaur media, what made you decide to become a being of pure Twitter energy?

People are busier than ever. They consume information quicker – in what I call “nuggets” – that must be direct and to the point. Twitter is a perfect vehicle for this, and you’d be surprised at how much you can say in 140 characters. Ironically, Twitter more closely resembles one of the older forms of media – all-news radio – than anything else. No time for BS – just deliver the information quickly and get on with it. Because I work alone, I’m more nimble and react faster than cable TV, which relies on a team of people to deliver the product to the customer. It’s a more cumbersome production process. And, unlike TV news, my customer base is growing rapidly. Comparing my 31,000 customers to, say, the cablers in primetime – 8pm – I’m 1.3% of Fox News’s peak prime time audience, 2.8% of MSNBC, 3.2% of CNN and 6% of HLN. That’s a pretty good niche for one guy, and that’s why I have sponsors and am turning a profit. All from one platform and one brand that I created from scratch. By the way, I call my followers “customers” because I have to compete for their valuable time and attention every day, and there are other places they can go.

2. How do you decide when, and what, to ask at a White House briefing?

My customers tell me – I conduct surveys – that they don’t care about the who’s up/who’s down, spin patrol//inside baseball stuff that some reporters seem to thrive on. They do care, however, about the basic questions: what’s being done to create jobs? Is my family safe? What’s going to happen to social security? What about $4 gas? I zero in on this bread-and-butter stuff whenever I can. When I report to my customers, I include this basic information along with some broader context, which the surveys show is very helpful.

3. The White House Press Corps is home to several prolific Twitter users. Is there something about the beat that lends itself to the format?

The White House can be a non-stop place. The briefing that you see on TV, when there is one, is only 45 minutes or so, but there’s always stuff going on the rest of the time. You just have to dig it up with the old time tactics – phone calls, questions, and connecting the dots. Because Twitter is like a utility – it’s always on – it’s easy to pass along information and context when it’s appropriate.

4. Few would have predicted Twitter’s dominance (several of our colleagues were late-adopting skeptics). What do you think is the next step in new media evolution?

Technologies are hard to predict. A decade ago, no one heard of Google and the iPad is less than a year old – and look at the impact it has had, for example. What’s easier to predict is the way in which consumers will consume. They’ll continue to pick and choose information that suits them, and consume it at a time and on a platform of their own choosing. The trend of content producers leveraging information onto multiple platforms will accelerate. This is OK from a capital standpoint, because the cost of acquiring content is largely borne upfront anyway, and then amortized as the content is spread across multiple platforms. I do think content on mobile devices is the area to focus on, however. No question about it.

5. You have some very influential Twitter followers. Have you ever gotten a follower email notification that made you do a double-take, and why?

When I worked at NBC News many years ago I, like many Americans, loved Katie Couric – and still do. It was a real treat when she began following me a year ago. But it also means that influential people in more traditional forms of media – in her case a nightly 22-munute show – are paying attention to new forms of media. Some, like Katie, are resilient and adaptive to these new platforms; others not so much.

While Carney is hardly the first journalist to assume the White House post, the challenges this presents are compounded by the fact that he succeeds a Press Secretary who had near-unprecedented access to the President’s inner circle.

In the weeks leading up to his promotion, those of my colleagues who know him spoke warmly of Jay Carney, and all expressed confidence in his abilities. As many have noted, he served Vice President Biden well, generating coverage that was mostly positive.

Since the announcement of his new post, I asked my colleagues to weigh in on the selection, and the challenges that Carney might face. One reporter who has covered the White House pointed out a pitfall that I hadn’t thought of:

I like Jay and I liked Robert. But being likable does not mean you will be an effective spokesman for the administration. Jay’s test will be what he does with information. Robert didn’t share it as readily as the press would have wanted. My guess is Jay knows that, has heard some of the knocks on Robert and will try to navigate that podium a little differently.

Also, a prediction from a former White House correspondent. People are forgetting he’s good looking. Just you wait, within 30 days someone will do a press secretary, the heartthrob story.

It’s true, Carney is a handsome guy, and while that might become a distraction for him, it relieves the pressure on the rest of us to compete for designated White House briefing eye-candy.

In all seriousness, though, most reporters I spoke with were pleased with President Obama’s selection of Carney. “It’s a good choice, we’re looking forward to working with him,” said USA Today‘s David Jackson, adding, “He knows the media and the administration, which will be a tremendous help.”

Carney’s status as a former colleague sets up expectations on both sides. Veteran CBS Radio correspondent (and uber-tweeter) Mark Knoller observed:

White House Press Secretary is a tough job for anyone, even one with as much experience in journalism as Carney.

As a one-time reporter on this beat, he well understands the demands of the White House Press Corps.

Sometimes former reporters do well in the job of spokesman, but sometimes not. It’s a sword that cuts both ways.

Both Carney and press must recognize that he is no longer one of us.

Of course, some White House reporters hope Carney doesn’t forget where he came from. Many who are newer to the beat, or who don’t know Carney, hope that he is able to get deeper into the back rows during the briefings than Gibbs did. As an early MSM adopter of the blogging platform, Carney is uniquely positioned to show empathy for the “back four.”

The Hill‘s Sam Youngman sees Carney’s less-inside position as a plus. “I think Jay will do well, given that the White House seems to be going back to the traditional press secretary model. Love Gibbs, but he could only be in so many places at once.”

Nationally-syndicated radio talk show host Bill Press places some of the onus for Carney’s success on President Obama:

There were several outstanding candidates for the job. I think Jay Carney’s an excellent choice, especially because he brings the perspective and experience of both a working journalist and a White House insider to the job. And I think he’ll be much more responsive to press corps’s need for information, background, and meeting deadlines. Only big question: Will Obama give him the unrestrained access enjoyed by Robert Gibbs?

LA Times/Chicago Tribune White House correspondent Christi Parsons points out that, just because he’s no Gibbs, Carney won’t get a pass on depth-of-knowledge:

Robert’s deep knowledge of the White House will be greatly missed – it was hard for him to say he didn’t know the answer to the big questions, because we all knew that he did – but don’t forget that Jay was a knowledgeable reporter with strong source relationships throughout government. The press corps will have the same expectation of him.

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper sees another key difference between Carney and his predecessor:

Jay brings an understanding to what reporters do that most press secretaries don’t have. Robert, of course, brought his closeness to the president. Jay is by nature not an ideologue or partisan — and he may be called to exercise those muscles more on occasion, just as Robert — who was originally in his career something of a partisan knife-fighter — had to adjust to being broader than that.

West Wing Report‘s Paul Brandus, who exhaustively tweets the goings-on in the White House briefing room, offered his more strategic observations via Twitter Direct Message:

Jay strengths: longtime journo, better understanding/appreciation of what it’s like on the receiving end of the briefing.

Jay weakness: lacks the long relationship w/POTUS that Gibbs enjoyed; their dynamic will be quite different. Jay’s not a “Chicago guy.”

On the other hand, “no drama Obama” may actually be a bit smoother in some respects than flacking for Joe “bull in a china shop” Biden

Perhaps no one has a better handle on the challenges of the job than someone who has held that podium. Former Bush administration Deputy Press secretary Tony Fratto offered his thoughts on Gibbs and Carney:

The inevitable difference between Robert and whoever follows him is the well-known closeness of the relationship with the President.  Everyone was well aware that Robert and President Obama were very close, so there was a sense of authority to Robert’s guidance.  Even if Jay is speaking with authority, lacking that background will lead some to question his authority.  That’s probably unfair, but inevitable.  Also, the structure of the communications operation seems to have changed as well, with Jay reporting through Plouffe, rather than directly to the President (apparently?) — not perfectly clear, but that looks like the position has been lessened a bit.

At today’s White House briefing, current Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to similar questions about Carney, expressing confidence in him, and punctuating his at-times tempestuous relationship to the press with a “thousand jokes” that he chose not to tell:

Considering the rocky road facing the President going into his re-election bid, there’s a fair amount of pressure resting on Jay Carney’s shoulders. The only thing I would add would be to note the difficulty with which this choice was made. While Gibbs only recently announced his departure from the White House, it has been in the works since before the mid-terms. The fact that it took this long is a testament to the deep bench of press aides that will remain to help ensure Carney’s success.

Update: ABC Radio correspondent Ann Compton contributed a comment shortly after publication of this article, raising a similar concern to Tony Fratto, but in much stronger terms. Instead of the zero degrees of separation that Robert Gibbs enjoyed, Carney will have to navigate through two:

Robert Gibbs is in the Oval Office inner circle.  Apparently Jay Carney will report to Dan Pfeiffer, who will report to David Plouffe.  That is a worrisome distance from  WH podium to the President’s Desk.  Press secretaries who are not at the policy table when decisions are made are doomed to spend their careers reading from talking points instead of experience at their briefings.    (First press secretary I covered was the last reporter in the job: Ron Nessen who left NBC to speak for Gerald Ford. )

Gibbs responded about as you’d respect, saying that the response was a celebration of the lives of the deceased. However, he did admit that he was surprised that the speech received so much applause.

“I will say that I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn’t be a lot of applause if any. I think many of us thought that. But I think there was a celebration, again, of the lives of those who had been impacted. Not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. And I think that, if that is part of the healing process, then that’s a good thing.”

Watch the full clip from C-Span below:

There have been a few names kicked around, but the smart money is on Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, and with the announcement sure to come within days, this is a good time to get to know the man who is likely to take over Gibbs’ podium. To that end, we’ve got some background, plus my own observations, and a little bit of chatter from around the White House Press Corps.

In my view, the greatest advantage to Bill Burton as Gibbs’ successor is that he is prepared. I don’t just mean that as it pertains to his experience, although in the past two years, he’s gotten plenty of on the job training conducting briefings in Gibbs’ stead. This sentiment was echoed by former Bush Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto, who says, “I think he would do a terrific job for the President.  My sense is he’s well-liked and respected both within the White House and among the press corps.  Also, there’s always a steep learning curve with that job, and Bill is as prepared for it as anyone can be.”

One of the hallmarks of Gibbs’ briefings, though, is preparation, the commission of President Obama’s policies and positions to second nature, rather than hemming and hawing over a stack of papers. Burton is in the same mold, a spokesperson whose knowledge of the issues is intimate enough to respond with true authority.

That authority is crucial to the job of press secretary, because it gives reporters confidence that they’ll be able to get answers that they couldn’t already read in a press release.

As Deputy Press Secretary, Burton has tended toward a slightly more concise style than Gibbs, which is sure to delight those of us who reside in the outlying rows. When he has conducted briefings over the past two years, Burton has typically gotten much deeper into the back rows than normal. Daily Caller’s Jon Ward observes of Burton:

I think many reporters have been pleased to date with Bill’s no nonsense, respectful and efficient briefings. He often keeps his answers short and doesn’t wax eloquent, which is a good thing because it allows for more follow ups. Plus, he’s been willing to call on a broad variety of reporters, moving well beyond the first three rows.

As Press Secretary, though, that could change somewhat, as the questioning might become more pointed.

Former Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Major Garrett, now at National Journal, had this to say of Burton:

Burton was and remains a crucial part of Robert’s approach to moving information and shaping the president’s message once it is developed. His approach at the podium is snappier than Robert’s and he delivers what the administration has to say more rapidly in part, I think, because, unlike Robert, he is not as burdened by all of the knowledge of how crucial policy decisions are made. Robert was more central to that process than many people may realize or appreciate. That made him rare among press secretaries. Robert was not only plugged in he was part of the wiring. If Bill ascends to this position, he may not enjoy that kind of access. I don’t know. But it comes with disadvantages. Bill is just as stout as Robert in defending the president and calling out reporters who he or Robert believes have taken a cheap shot. And he knows the message and shaping strategies of the White House as well as anyone.

Gibbs’ personal closeness to the President has been a blessing, according to Gibbs, but another White House reporter, who preferred not to be named so he could be candid in his views, made an important point about that. “(Burton)’s a smart, loyal, affable guy who’d be an asset to the president. Obviously he doesn’t have the closeness to the president that Gibbs does, but none of the possible replacements do. He’s briefed dozens of times so far and has done well.”

Members of the White House press corps shared some of their thoughts on Bill Burton’s possible ascension with Mediaite. CBS Radio News’ Mark Knoller told us:

Burton is a professional who makes an effort to be helpful to reporters. But there’s no doubt his top loyalty is to Pres. Obama and not the press.

Burton has also shown himself to be an agile spokesman when conducting on-the-record press briefings. He knows Obama’s policies and can speak authoritatively. But he also understands the press and what we need.

Burton also has a good sense of humor about the White House relationship with the press – an essential quality for someone who might serve as Press Secretary.

NBC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Chuck Todd says Burton is “sharp, likeable and responsive,” important qualities from a reporter’s perspective. Although I have never experienced it, other reporters have complained of long stints in other press secretaries’ doghouses, but Burton, in my experience, doesn’t take things personally, and has the rare ability to be both friendly and frank.

At 33 years old, Burton’s youth is an advantage when it comes to leveraging technology to share information, already a strength of this administration, but without the disadvantage of inexperience. A native of Buffalo, NY, Burton followed his graduation from the University of Minnesota by moving to Washington, DC, as a staffer for Rep. Bill Luther (D-Mn), and in 2001, began a two-year stint as press secretary for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

In 2003, Burton worked on Dick Gephardt‘s  presidential campaign, switching to John Kerry‘s campaign after Gephardt dropped out. It was during the 2004 campaign that Burton met future wife Laura Capps, becoming one of several meet-cute romances that dot the current Obama fold.

Following Kerry’s losing presidential bid, Burton took the communications director post at the DCCC, then headed by future Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Then, in 2007, Burton joined then-Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, as national press secretary, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Bill Burton’s experience and competence make him the natural choice to succeed Gibbs, especially for a White House that really doesn’t need to miss a beat at this point. This is going to be a tough year for the Obama administration, and they could sure use a proven steady hand at that podium. While as Deputy Press Secretary, Burton has been a relatively low-key presence when conducting briefings, he might surprise people in his new role. Anyone who remembers the 2008 campaign knows that Burton can slug it out with the best of them. This is, perhaps, best exemplified in this clip, in which he takes on tough-as-nails Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly:

“With the early returns and the overwhelming number if Democrats who are coming out, we’re on pace to maintain the majority,” she said.

Of course she may be merely encouraging after work voters to get out and vote. Mark Knoller‘s RT has been making the rounds on Twitter.

There were also a few exchanges that underscored Jon Stewart’s influence, and a priceless quip by Mother Jones’ David Corn.

When a reporter asked Gibbs if the President is concerned that “a leading comedian is holding a political rally,” David Corn joked (off-mic), “One already did, in August.”

Gibbs told me that the President wouldn’t be attending the rally, but would instead begin the midterm campaigning home stretch this weekend. Thus seems like a bit of a missed opportunity, as Gibbs also told CBS’ Mark Knoller that The Daily Show is an effective way to reach young voters just before the midterms. A quick cameo at the rally would seem like time well spent.

Here is a compilation of the Stewart-related questions from the briefing.

Transcript: (via email)

Tommy Christopher: Well, the last one is really quick.  Is there any chance the President is going to put in an appearance at the rally?

MR. GIBBS: Put in an appearance?

Tommy Christopher: At the rally to restore honor/fear — sanity and fear.

MR. GIBBS: No, we’ll be flying around to the other states.

…

Q    Robert, just about The Daily Show interview.  You explained kind of the President’s reasons for going on it.  It does coincide with the run-up to this big rally that he’s having over the weekend.

MR. GIBBS: I will say this.  Jon Stewart announced a long, long time ago that he would be in Washington before the existence of the rally.  That’s when we — we signed up to do the show many months ago, I think long before the existence of the rally.

Q    Okay.  But does the President — first of all, does the President have any opinion or even an understanding of what the rally’s purpose is, and whether it’s something that he thinks would be useful to the Democrats?

MR. GIBBS: I’ve not talked to the President about the rally.  I don’t know what his opinion is on it.

…

Mark Knoller: And The Daily Show is part of that (GOTV effort)?

MR. GIBBS: I think absolutely.  I think the — we have — two things.  I think obviously you’ve got a constituency of younger voters that watch that show, and it’s a good place to go and reach them.

And, look, sort of ancillary to that, my second point, which is — whether it is — whether you’re doing something like The View, or you’re doing something like The Daily Show, look, I don’t have to tell you guys that not everybody — there’s a lot of different channels for people to watch these days.

They get their information from not just television news and cable and newspapers and radio and the Internet.  They get them from — there’s a lot of different places.  And the President hasn’t been shy about going to the places where people are getting their information and trying to make his case.  And I think that’s what he’ll do on the show.

…

Q    Robert, does the President not have any concern about the conflation of entertainment comedy and politics?  Does that — does it take away from the seriousness?

MR. GIBBS: Jon Stewart is sort of past that.

Q    It’s not just about the interview, but the weekend as well.

MR. GIBBS: How so?

Q    Well, to the extent that a leading comedian is holding a political rally — no concern about that?

MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily, no.  I mean, look, we’ve had entertainers join things like Rock the Vote to help register people to vote and help get people involved.  Look, I think the President would tell you that we have a very special gift in our democracy that the people get to render their judgment and they get to elect those that will represent them in Washington.  And efforts that help get people involved in and excited in participating in that democracy on either side is a good thing.

The decision to caution travelers comes as counterterrorism officials in Europe and the United States are assessing intelligence about possible plots originating in Pakistan and North Africa aimed at Britain, France and Germany.

A travel alert merely urges extra caution during a specific time and does not discourage Americans from visiting Europe. An American official who confirmed the warning on Saturday, who did not want to be identified speaking about internal government deliberations, said a stronger “travel warning” that might advise Americans not to visit Europe was not under consideration.

You can read the full advisory below, but here’s a few other things to keep in mind.

As the NYT‘s Jim Roberts notes the “Travel alert is NOT very specific, warning only of potential for attacks. It does NOT advise against traveling to Europe.”

Mark Knoller points out: “The alerts make you aware of a potential threat & let you decide whether to pursue or cancel your travel plans…Imagine the outrage if State Department knew of a potential threat in Europe and failed to alert American travellers.”

Full advisory:

The State Department alerts U.S. citizens to the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe. Current information suggests that al-Qa’ida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks. European governments have taken action to guard against a terrorist attack and some have spoken publicly about the heightened threat conditions.

Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Terrorists have targeted and attacked subway and rail systems, as well as aviation and maritime services. U.S. citizens should take every precaution to be aware of their surroundings and to adopt appropriate safety measures to protect themselves when traveling.

We continue to work closely with our European allies on the threat from international terrorism, including al-Qa’ida. Information is routinely shared between the U.S. and our key partners in order to disrupt terrorist plotting, identify and take action against potential operatives, and strengthen our defenses against potential threats.

We recommend U.S. citizens register their travel plans with the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy through the State Department’s travel registration website. Travelers may obtain up-to-date information on security conditions by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the U.S. and Canada, or on a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444 from elsewhere in the world.

For information on general crime and security issues, U.S. citizens should also consult the Department of State’s Country-Specific Information as well as the Worldwide Caution, which can be found on the Bureau of Consular Affairs website. For further information on safety tips while traveling abroad, U.S. citizens should also consult the following website: http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/tips_1232.html

The response was immediately construed in some corners as evidence Obama thinks vacation is more important than his job. Regardless, it highlights the problem of the Obamas vacationing in such a public setting. As Mark Knoller so ably and frequently points out, George W. Bush had taken far more vacations at this point in his presidency than Obama, however he mostly took them on his ranch in Texas, far out of the public and press’ eye, significantly reducing the chance of similar “shrimp” headlines and photo-ops.

Meanwhile, Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told the press briefing yesterday that Obama would have nothing further to say on the Lower Manhattan mosque.

The White House says President Barack Obama will have no further comment on the mosque near Ground Zero in New York and the administration will not get involved in talks about relocating the controversial facility.

Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton was asked about the issue Tuesday at a White House press briefing.

He replied, “No, and no” to the questions of whether Obama would weigh in further, or whether the White House would have a role in discussions about moving the mosque.

Famous last words? We shall see. Video of the Obamas ‘buying shrimp’ below.

But the headliner perhaps, at least as far as the pool reporters (and proud papa Obama) are concerned, may have been Sasha’s hole-in-one yesterday during a game of miniature golf. Watch below.

According to Mark Knoller “VP Biden & wife Jill were aboard the military version of the Boeing 757 for the flight back to DC from their Hamptons vacation.”

In light of how many accidents there seems to be of late involving either Biden’s or the President’s motorcade Andy Levy offered this sage advice: “Seriously, people, stay the f**k away from Joe Biden when he’s traveling: http://bit.ly/aW8p7Z” [Asterisks mine, got to keep things somewhat respectable around here.]

It may sound corny to some, but Helen Thomas

I explained that they would be moving to the center seat, a scenario that I floated in June in response to Chris Wallace’s gloating on the matter.  She asked “Well, who’s getting their old seat?”

I told her it would be Fox News.

“Too bad.” she replied. Asked to elaborate, she said “What do I think of it? I think that I have no say, no power over that anymore…I hope they do a good job.”

I told her I was sure they would. Major Garrett and Wendell Goler are credits to the profession of journalism.

I also took the opportunity to thank Helen for being such a good friend and role model in the year-and-a-half we worked together. She sounded good, better than I’ve ever heard her when she wasn’t having a go at Robert Gibbs. She also sent her love to her former colleagues.

Other reactions included Major Garrett‘s characteristically humble spreading of the credit to his colleagues at Fox News:

Those of us who will sit in the front owe a debt to Jim Angle, Carl Cameron, Bret Baier and network that supported them.

New York Daily News correspondent Ken Bazinet agrees that “The board got this decision right. This was a no-brainer from the start. Fox has the numbers to back up it’s argument for moving and AP indeed belongs front and center.”

White House uber-tweeter Mark Knoller remarked, “You don’t need a front row seat to cover the White House skillfully.”

While the big story here is the front row, Knoller is absolutely right. The practical difference between 2nd and 1st rows is almost nonexistent. The ripples of these moves will be felt more by people like my friend Bill Press, who says “I think it was a Solomonesque decision that will offend no one. The main advantage? Now maybe Gibbs will more readily get to the fourth and fifth rows – where the best questions come from!”

Like Knoller, The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward has a suggestion for better question equity. “Its what I expected and Fox deserves to join the other networks there. I’m very happy that the foreign press outlets now have a dedicated chair as well. I’d still like to see a pool seat in the first three rows so reporters from different outlets can rotate in and get a chance to break into the regular pattern of questioners.”

For most of us, that front-row center seat will always be Helen Thomas’ seat. In the month following her resignation, it remained empty during briefings, but it remained the first destination for visitors to the Brady Briefing Room, press and non-press alike. After exactly one month, USA Today’s David Jackson became the first of a very few reporters who got to sit in Helen’s seat before it was reassigned. Only 5 White House reporters can claim that privilege, and here they are:

I confess that, aside from Jackson, I only recognize Ebony Magazine’s Kevin Chapell and HuffPo’s Sam Stein. I’ve only sat in the front row once, and was so unnerved, I never tried it again.

Still unknown is what will happen to Helen’s nameplate. Given time and context, I hope that this symbol of Helen’s historic importance is given a place of honor on the wall of the Brady Briefing Room in which she worked for so many years.

Pres. Obama made a brief statement today in a “press spray,” flanked by Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, and White House correspondents seem to think the implication was McChrystal will keep his job.

“I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appear showed poor judgment,” said Obama. “I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions.”

That talk will take place tomorrow, but Chuck Todd tweeted he believes McChrystal will stick around: “There is a path for Gen. McCrystal to save his job; everything depends on how the meeting w/POTUS goes tomorrow morning.”

Obama closed the statement by saying:

Whatever decision I make with respect to Gen. McChrystal or any other aspect of Afghan policy is determined entirely on how I can make sure we have a strategy that justifies the enormous courage and sacrifice that those men and women are making over there.

Mark Knoller believes this shows McChrystal is staying. He tweets: “That last quote makes it sound as though Obama will not fire McChrystal so long as he has confidence in his Afghanistan strategy.”

Will it be Helen Thomas or David Paterson? We’ll find out tomorrow…

Here’s Obama’s comments:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

After a week of hype, it turns out Obama’s big meeting with BP Oil execs at the White House today — the showdown over the Gulf! — is only 20 minutes long, and BP has been told Obama will only attend a “portion” of it. Just enough of a portion for Obama to (literally) kick some ass? We may never know as the meeting is, sadly, closed to press, but even with the President’s inevitably busy schedule 20 minutes doesn’t strike as enough time for much except some stern looking photo ops. Just for comparison’s sake, the President is scheduled to have a 1 hour 15 minute lunch with Vice President Joe Biden and an indeterminate amount of time with Senator Scott Brown.

Update: Via Mark Knoller: ‘Now I’m told Pres. Obama will attend two portions of the WH meeting with BP execs – spending more than the 20 mins on his schedule.’

Update #2: Via Mark Knoller: For those keeping score: WH/BP talks ran 4 hrs. Obama took part for 20 minutes at top & later 25 mins privately with BP Chmn Svanberg.

If so it may be the longest death throe in history. The crux of the problem, naturally, is the Internet. It is providing the President with far too many ways to circumvent the fourth estate. Says Grove:

At the very moment that social media and enhanced technology are proliferating and gaining audience share by the tens of millions, giving President Obama powerful interactive tools to communicate directly with the public, the old media are in a world of hurt.

Uh huh. Get in line? What Grove, and the number of reporters he talks to, including Mark Knoller (who does not RT Robert Gibbs: “I rewrite them and I put them in context, because it’s not my job to give him access to all of my followers.”) and Jake Tapper (who does not like the White House flickr stream: “That’s not photojournalism; it’s hagiography.”) fail to note is how much more relevant this same technology has made them. UPDATE: Tapper writes to clarify: “I have no problem with the WH flickr feed and I like all the behind-the-scenes shots. What I don’t like is WH photojournalists being blocked from attending, say, a bill signing, with the WH arguing its official photograph is the same thing.”

Point being, how many out there were aware of Knoller pre-Twitter? Not that many I (sadly) bet. Same goes for Tapper, but to a much larger extent since I would be more than willing to bet Tapper slid (temporarily) into the This Week chair based on primarily on his online presence. Which is growing thanks to the very smart decision live-tweeting of show he has initiated in the last few weeks. Other morning hosts should be taking note.

If anything, I would argue that the Internet has made the White House Press Corps more relevant. Now the public has access to real time eyes and ears in a way that was impossible prior to the advent of Twitter. There is nothing irrelevant about that. In fact, I’ve always suspected it’s the White House that spends a lot of time scrambling to keep up.

Knoller, who in the last year has found a rather perfect niche on Twitter for his presidential facts and trivia (not to mention straight up reporting) has apparently been a well-known figure in the White House for many years for just these reasons. So much so that when there is a dispute between the White House and Knoller’s numbers the White House generally defers to Knoller. But here is my favorite part:

Mr. Knoller helped earn President George W. Bush his reputation for frequent trips outside Washington, counting that over two terms Mr. Bush made 77 trips to his ranch in Texas, spanning all or part of 490 days; spent 43 full or partial days at the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 487 full or partial days at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md.

Mr. Bush, gripping Mr. Knoller for the obligatory photo at a holiday party one year, told the first lady, “Hey, Laura, this is the guy who counts it as a vacation day when we get to Texas on a Friday night.”

“No, Mr. President,” Mr. Knoller says he responded, “I would have noted that as a partial day.” A former Bush administration official confirms: “If Knoller said it, it’s true.”

These things add up, so to speak. If you’re not already doing so, follow Knoller on Twitter here.

Burton made a quiet entry into 140 character land during the Christmas holidays, and has since amassed 4000 or so followers. Roberts Gibbs’ arrival on Saturday, it will probably not surprise you, was somewhat more splashy — in just over a day he clocked in 17,000 followers (he now has 21,000-plus): “watch out Kim Kardashian!”

Who wants to start placing bets on how long it is before Gibbs creates a national incident with that Twitter feed? Two weeks? A month? In the meantime, Michael Calderone reports, the White House is using their new presence in Twitter land to keep a sharp eye on what politcal journos are reporting.

Gibbs told POLITICO that he was inspired to join after watching Burton’s account during President Barack Obama’s surprise visit to the White House briefing room last Tuesday.

Burton could see that reporters were having non-news related side conversations over Twitter and chastised them for not focusing on the president. Gibbs said it was “fascinating to see what people are thinking, writing, doing in real time.”

Sounds a lot like they are positioning themselves as Twitter hall monitors! Let’s hope it’s not quite so boring as all that. There is also the assumption they will (and in Burton’s case, have) use Twitter to quickly push back on stories they disagree with. How this will pan out exactly in real time should be interesting to see: Gibbs’ first press briefing as a Twitterer is today. To tweet or not to tweet?

Do you have a question, comment or complaint about anything concerning Mediaite? Well if you do, today is a real chance to make your voice heard. We will be holding our Mediaite Office Hours at 3pmET.

We’ll talk to Knoller about last night’s State of the Union, and his trip to Florida today covering Pres. Obama. Follow him on Twitter here (and seriously – follow him). Stelter just got back from covering the National Association of Television Program Executives conference in Las Vegas, and we’ll talk about Leno/Conan and more. Follow him on Twitter here.

Also, we’ll talk about our new site, Geekosystem.com!

Glynnis MacNicol, Steve Krakauer and Rachel Sklar host the live-streamed call-in show, and others in the Mediaite team, like, Colby Hall and our fantastic interns, will appear periodically, as well as special guests.

Our call-in number is (347) 632-8956. Also, we’re using Skype now, so you can video chat in to our username – Mediaite. We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Watch us live here on this page at 3pmET, or check it out at www.livestream.com/mediaite.

We’ll talk to Knoller first than Cillizza later.

See you at 3pm!

Nevertheless! It is the State of the Union, and technically Obama’s first, and along with that comes a ton of pomp and circumstance and a day filled with predictions about what the President may or may not say, and what Joe Wilson may or may not holler (Time says nothing, but more on that below).

From the NYT:

When Mr. Obama presents his first State of the Union address on Wednesday evening, aides said he would accept responsibility, though not necessarily blame, for failing to deliver swiftly on some of the changes he promised a year ago. But he will not, aides said, accede to criticism that his priorities are out of step with the nation’s.

From CBS’s Mark Knoller (follow him on Twitter here if you’re not already):

It’s a little known secret about the House Chamber. Inside the lectern from which the U.S. president addresses Joint Sessions of Congress, there’s a small locked box. Once a year, just before a president arrives to deliver his annual State of the Union Address, the House Sergeant-at-Arms unlocks the box with a four-sided key that dates back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. The cover flips up to reveal a red button about the size of a half-dollar coin. If the president presses it during his speech, he gets to start his presidency over again. If only. [HA]

The possible state of the post-apocalyptic union:

For those keeping Continuity of Government score at home tonight, there’s a new wrinkle this year : Not only will there be a Cabinet member hidden in some undisclosed location to prevent a complete beheading of our government, but the senior-most Cabinet secretary will also be absent from the speech, per the President’s direction to her to stick to a previously scheduled international meetings in London on hot-button national security issues Yemen and Afghanistan.

The other speech people are waiting for:

Congressman Joe Wilson will deliver the first ever live response to a State of the Union via Facebook on Wednesday. The South Carolina Republican is most known for blurting out “You lie!” during President Obama’s last speech to a joint session of Congress. Wilson will deliver an address live on his Facebook page approximately 30 minutes after Obama concludes the State of the Union.

And finally the speech the media may be most obsessed with tomorrow:

The chief executive officer speaks at a press conference today in San Francisco, where he will announce “a major new product that we’re really excited about,” he said this week in a statement with Apple’s earnings.

There were many significant and ongoing narratives in the mediascape this year. The continued explosion of online media dovetailed with the continued collapse of print — Condé Nast ushered in the McKinsey executors while Gawker Media posted huge profits. Meanwhile, Newsweek tried to reinvent itself, the New York Times suffered another round of layoffs and a host of shuttered papers and magazines stopped cold. Online we saw huge acquisitions and gains, but not without growing pains: the net had its fair share of job cuts, too, as advertising slumped across the board. But as media critic David Carr put it, there’s an underlying wave of youth and optimism.

This year we also saw opinion media dominate traditional journalism in ways that no one would ever have expected. Fox News pulled further ahead of the competition with the continued success of Bill O’Reilly and a breakout year from Glenn Beck, not to mention the network’s similar domination of straight news blocks. The Huffington Post kept momentum from the kickstart of the 2008 election, while the right feasted on a first year president.

Pop culture had its moments, too — not all of them pretty, in fact, most pretty ugly — from Balloon Boy and Kanye “Jackass” West to Rihanna and the death of Michael Jackson. As a result, gossip blogs had another stellar year and TMZ led the pack. Then came MTV’s latest gem.

It often seemed like a rough year — maybe a fitting end to a tough decade — but that doesn’t mean there weren’t bright spots. We saw innovation, redemption and reconciliation, and the tactful and savvy rose to the top of the media heap. Those are the names that make up The Mediaite 50.

RELATED: Poll: Who Is The Top Online Editor Of 2009?

(Note – the rankings of these individuals are purely opposed to the rankings in the Mediaite Power Grid)

>>>NEXT: The first 5 in the Mediaite 50 include a crew from Seaside Heights and a young man you might just Digg…

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-mediaite-50-innovators-and-influencers-who-shook-up-2009/feed/ 11 http://www.mediaite.com/online/senate-votes-on-hcr-christmas-eve-edition/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/senate-votes-on-hcr-christmas-eve-edition/#comments Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:08:46 +0000 Glynnis MacNicol http://www.mediaite.com/?p=61090 vitriolic politicians have aroused themselves at the crack of dawn in order to vote on the health care reform bill that most of the nation may or may not understand, but are willing to fight about anyway! In a last minute Christmas spiritish move the Senate moved the vote from 8am to 7am in order to let everyone attempt to get home for Christmas. Here's the view from Twitter thus far.]]> ‘Twas the crack of dawn before Christmas, and one hundred angry, vitriolic (also determined) politicians have aroused themselves at the crack of dawn in order to vote on the health care reform bill that most of the nation may or may not understand, but are willing to fight about anyway!

In a last minute Christmas spiritish move the Senate moved the vote from 8am to 7am in order to let everyone — including President Obama, who is going to Hawaii for his first extended vacation this (very long) year — attempt to get home for Christmas. Good luck with that, Joe Biden! In the meantime, as far as we can gauge from our Tweetdeck Salon’s Mike Madden and (of course!) Mark Knoller are one of the few peoples up early enough to take in all the Senate floor festivities (also, Karen Tumulty has an open thread running at Swampland). So while we wait to see if the nation gets a new health care bill for Christmas (the president will give a statement at 8:45) take it away Mike and Mark (refresh for updates):

UPDATE: The bill has been passed. Along strict party lines: 60-39. You can read the most current version of it here.

Do you have a question, comment or complaint about anything concerning Mediaite? Well if you do, today is a real chance to make your voice heard. We will be holding our Mediaite Office Hours at 3pmET.

Knoller is CBS News Radio’s White House Correspondent – a job he has held since the Ford administration. We’ll talk to him about the health care bill and what it’s like covering this White House versus those of the past. Follow him on Twitter here. We’ll also talk to Deadspin.com Editor Daulerio about Tiger Woods and more. Follow him on Twitter as well.

Glynnis MacNicol, Steve Krakauer and Rachel Sklar host the live-streamed call-in show, and others in the Mediaite team, like, Colby Hall and our fantastic interns, will appear periodically, as well as special guests.

Our call-in number is (347) 632-8956. Also, we’re using Skype now, so you can video chat in to our username – Mediaite. We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Watch us live here on this page at 3pmET, or check it out at www.livestream.com/mediaite.

We’ll talk to Knoller first and Daulerio later.

See you at 3pm for the last Office Hours of 2009!

The initial, general consensus seems to be that Obama exceeded expectations and that his “sober” acceptance speech — which required him to walk a very tricky tightrope — will please the conservatives as well as the liberals as much as any speech by the president can. That said, for a Nobel Peace Prize speech the president spoke an awful lot about war. In fact, he mentioned ‘war’ 44 times during the speech — a ‘just war‘ appears to be the main takeaway. To contrast he mentioned ‘peace’ 29 times. Sound like a strange tone to strike whilst accepting a peace prize? Well, maybe just imagine if he had he not chosen to address the elephant in the room. Says the Atlantic’s James Fallows:

As with his Philadelphia speech, he made the speech about the most awkward issue of the moment, rather than trying to avoid it. (In Philadelphia, the racially inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright; in Oslo, his predicament as a war president getting a peace price.) I don’t think he provided even a five-second passage of the speech that could be isolated by U.S. opponents to show that he was “apologizing” for America.

Time’s Joe Klein thinks this passage from the speech is particularly worth noting as there is “something remarkably gutsy about using Martin Luther King Jr. as a foil before the Nobel Committee”:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Meanwhile Politico’s Ben Smith felt Obama used the opportunity to “to sell his foreign policy at home and abroad without public reference to human rights, viewed by this White House as cheap — as used by Bush — and potentially counterproductive.” You can read the full text of the speech here and once we get video I will update. (Update: video below)