Poll: Should President Obama appear on The View?

How is no time too much time? How much time has he spent on TV shows since taking office besides the regular interviews with the news stations?

Who cares if he goes on The View? The View is for retired old women, housewives, etc. He is simply going to give and interview, push his agenda, hopefully DEMOLISH Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and take a few photos. Its 2010: there is no reason why the President should not get his message out to people on media other than the 4-5 "news" stations out there. People are getting their news and information from other sources these days, and if he is smart, he will show his face on some of those sources so he can get his message to them as well...

Its 2010: there is no reason why the President should not get his message out to people on media other than the 4-5 "news" stations out there. People are getting their news and information from other sources these days, and if he is smart, he will show his face on some of those sources so he can get his message to them as well...

Absolutely spot on! Well said. :o)

Only going by what I heard on the news as of the end of his first year in office - where the average presidential media appearance number was in the mid 40s. Obama had done more than 100. Either way, he is not at his appointed place of duty and performing, er, excuse me - learning, those duties, he is off carousing with the media. It's called malingering or even dereliction of duty. JMO

"these shows" - call it any media appearance, but Obama takes it too far and too much. Today, show, the view, what a crock. Do the limited stuff from the white house pres room, make an announcement or two from the oval office and get back to learning the job - stop trying to BS the American public.

"these shows" - call it any media appearance, but Obama takes it too far and too much. Today, show, the view, what a crock. Do the limited stuff from the white house pres room, make an announcement or two from the oval office and get back to learning the job - stop trying to BS the American public.

Most people pay no attention to the network news or White House Press conferences. They get their information from sources OTHER than the 4-5 cable news stations. The White House would be a FOOL to not take advantage of those sources. Times change, society changes, and our politicians are going to change with it.

"(The president) is simply going to give an interview, push his agenda, hopefully DEMOLISH Elizabeth Hasselbeck..."

Okay, two of those three things are fine. Public appearances by sitting presidents to garner support for their platforms is consistent with 20th century American history. In the past, however, presidents used rallies (whistestop speeches, commencement speeches at university graduations, honorary dinners, and "town hall") to get their face out. The closest thing to an informal appearance - one which the president tries to look like a peer to his hosts - is factory or workplace appearances. FDR's method of communicating directly to the American people (via "Fireside Chats") is not quite the same thing.

Here's the thing, though: Appearing in public is considered okay because it's... well... you know, the public. And appearing in a workplace is okay because any one type of work stands in as a representation for all kinds of work - something most Americans do on a nearly daily basis. A workshop, be it a truck assembly line or a research laboratory, is in our virtual collective domain just like the high school gymnasium, downtown arena, or university auditorium.

Appearance on television is trickier. Heels is right, The View is oriented toward a certain audience and is a more exclusive domain. We all went to a school once, most of us have worked. School and work do not define our identities. But the shows we watch do. And going on one show, let's say Hardball... would be interpreted by the producers and viewers of The O'Reilly Factor as showing favoritism to a certain audience. (I know we're not talking about Hardball or The Factor. I don't know much about The View, though, so I'm at a loss to identify a polar opposite. I assume there is some political discussion on the view, otherwise Heels wouldn't have perceived a preexisting conflict with one of its hosts.)

Even going on both would be problematic because of the power imbalance of the president of the United States over a television personality, even ones as popular and influential as Chris Mathews and Bill O'Reilly. There is a certain deference, whether we admit it or not, that prevents a person from viciously contradicting the president to his face. Sure, a pundit like O'Reilly might ask "tough questions" - but he will leave his open ended questions about the president's birth certificate or fears of a "new world order/ one world government" at the door. The president himself can't go on the offensive, lest he be seen as a bully for exploiting the power imbalance.

The president can't "DEMOLISH" Ms. Hasselbeck (I guess she's vocally conservative?) and she is inhibited from being as open as she might be with a Democratic Party strategist or even a lower ranking administration official. Thus, the act of appearing on a show like The View must involve more limited goals. The strongest critics might argue that it is indistinguishable from ritual or propaganda. Either way, it isn't considered a part of the president's actual job.

This, not that it is somehow "beneath the dignity" of the president, is why more presidents don't appear on network TV. Still, for the record, I voted that Mr. Obama should appear in this poll. I don't think he shouldn't. I think such appearances are good every once in a while. Since they don't serve tangible purposes beyond temporary and slight bumps to approval ratings in the most variable polling groups, regular appearances have no function. But an occasional appearances don't hurt anything and should therefore not be opposed.

Thanks for backing me up, Carloz. I wish I had used better grammar.

Should have read: "But occasional appearances don't hurt anything and should therefore not be opposed."

I cannot cite direct dates, facts or figures. I do not sit here and try to BS my way, I give what I remember to have heard on a talk show on the way home from work one day (not Limbaugh, I despise that tub of lard and won't have him on), hence I'm not spot on with my numbers. I do remember that the average number of presidential media appearances at the comparable point on the term time line was in the mid 40s (43?) and Obama had made more than 100 (112 plus?). I hesitate to give specific numbers because, darn it, I didn't pull over and write it down for future debate. Sorry I can't accommodate you more. I stand by my statement:

He spends too much time on these shows, he has a job he needs to learn how to do, not showboat on TV.

I did not say he shouldn't spend any time on TV.

I cannot cite direct dates, facts or figures. I do not sit here and try to BS my way, I give what I remember to have heard on a talk show on the way home from work one day

dude, and i say this with all applicable caring dudeness,

that's exactly what "BS-ing" is.

NO - BS is making it all up and I am not making it all up. I'm giving the information that I remember, please forgive me if I don't have the exact date time radio station and verbiage - I was driving and decided that writing it down for future debate was a tad dangerous while going 65 down the freeway. I didn't claim the numbers were exact, I just used the general numbers as I remembered them to try to make a point - that point being that Obama had made more than twice as many media appearances than any other president at that point in his term. My other point stands - He has a job to learn instead of coddling up to the press.

ok, fair enough,

I actually did just notice that you qualified what you said as "from what I heard" in the first place.

No chance on earth whoever you heard it from was exaggerating, lying, or just bs-ing- but based on that you criticize the President.

I really do doubt it. While I don't really care for the self centered loudmouth host as a person, he generally has his facts straight (unlike Limbaugh who even to me makes up stuff), all I did was relay what I remembered. Sorry I can't help your apparent burning need to shoot the messenger but I can't quote source, page, verse, date, time and all that to satisfy your demands. You always struck me as at least reasonable, why the change?

And no, I criticize Obama because: A) I can, it's my right. and B) in my opinion (to which I am entitled) he is not worthy of the office, he has no leadership ability and no business being president. In my opinion he will do more damage (has done...) on top of the damage that GWB did, thus making the situation worse. I have said before - GWB ran the good ship USA aground, Obama is doing everything he can to sink it. Have a nice day.

I actually did just notice that you qualified what you said as "from what I heard" in the first place.

greck, I don't think the phrase "from what I heard" disqualifies it from being BS.

Chief, Dude, it's too easy to back up anything you say with proof...opinions are fine, but if you are going to start saying 'such and such is such because of such' then you need to support your 'facts/points/opinions'...all it takes is a few seconds of a Google search to find practically anything under the sun...But first you need to 'do it'...

TV shows President Obama has appeared on....

So far most links deal with stories relating to appearances in the news not shows themselves. But there is one for the 'Jay Leno show', and a mention of the 'Meet the Press' and of course 'the View'....I didn't go any farther than that first page...

Now, I asked google a different question

number of times President Obama has been on the TV news

Here to, there are numerous links to 'stories' about appearances...but none that actually give an accurate number because a lot of it is just stuff 'about Obama' and not Obama appearing on said show or news program.

As to the article...I have no problem with the president appearing on The View...the ladies are a class act who treat their guest with respect, and will not denigrate the presidential office.

I do have one question to ask...(and a possible follow up)

If President Obama were to appear on any 'Fox' show, would there be this 'outcry'? If not, why not?

Agreed.

Too often I get the impression that some people seed to fulfill a personal need for attention and approval.

It is just a matter of time before such excessive seed pandering makes Newsvine a marginal participatory journalism site.

I'm setting my DVR to record it.

thanks Carloz.

I do enjoy seeing people like the president on shows like The View wherein they talk about more non-political stuff, or at least are more personal.

What it ultimately does (and watching President Bush on shows like this had the same effect) is reminds me of the humanity common to us all, reminds me that no matter how crappy a president someone might or might not be, he's still a human being, just like me. We tend to forget that when we want something from someone.

so what I'm saying is that watching The View or Oprah or Barbara Walters "centers" me. As sad as that is...

BUT he has time to go campaigning on the view?

Therese---and don't forget he is also today gracing NJ with his presence again at a taxpayer funded campaign stop where he no doubt will bash the "partisan minority" at a sub shop in Edison.

Lisaed, you must lead one hell of a miserable life to be so grumpy all the time about your president! :o(

Ms Cyprah--grumpy? Have you seen his sagging poll numbers (which are why he'll be sitting on the couch with the View ladies in the first place)? I'd hardly describe my feelings in any way shape or form as "grumpy."

Lisaed, you must lead one hell of a miserable life to be so grumpy all the time about your president! :o(

i think its more than just lisaed...

I'll get lisaed to smile.....Chris Christie hits another one out of the ballpark on Morning Joe!

I love that guy!

And I look forward to seeing Obama on The View! I love that guy!

Have you seen his sagging poll numbers

Never trust polls mid-term. They only suggest that the honeymoon is over, not that the marriage is finished! And with the sad excuse for a party that the GOP represents just now I don't think he has any real competition just now, even if polls are down. :o)

Hey, I like that metaphor, Ms C. Can I use it sometime?

Help yourself, good friend, and thanks for the reinforcement! :o)

I'll get lisaed to smile.....Chris Christie hits another one out of the ballpark on Morning Joe!

I love that guy!

Joanna--I saw it too...I'm smiling now. Thanks.

Ms CYPRAH

And with the sad excuse for a party that the GOP represents just now

The GOP is a sad excuse? Jeepers, have you even been watching the news since Inauguration Day? It wasn't the Pubs who flushed $800B down the toilet to pay for a bogus "stimulus". It wasn't the Pubs who illegally bought shares of General Motors. It wasn't the Pubs who rammed the Health Care Bill From Hell down our throats.

In addition to being fiscally reckless and incompetent, our president has a track record of corruption. As a senator he took over $100,000 in legal bribes from the wealthy suits at Fannie and Freddie in exchange for his votes and influence in Congress to do the bidding of those suits. I trust him as far as I can throw my car.

The GOP may indeed be hurting, but as bad as they are they're a helluva lot less dangerous than the Democrats are.

As for Lisa, I've been a forum buddy of hers for around five years now. "Grumpy" doesn't describe her. She's one of the most serene folks I've met online and on her column she handles with grace some of the nasty stuff the lefties dish up, stuff that riles me up.

Rickace--I thank you kind sir.

The GOP may indeed be hurting, but as bad as they are they're a helluva lot less dangerous than the Democrats are.

Mmmmm...I guess that's a matter of opinion, rick! :o(

I the GOP wants to be the next government they had better start behaving like one. they can't spend their time sabotaging and putting down the current government then expect others to vote for them or respect them IF they get into office. Doesn't work like that. In fact, they have a shock in store for them, come November!

She's one of the most serene folks I've met online

I have no doubt she is, but it seems that when it comes to the president, she's always grumpy!!

Fox "News" Promotes Bogus Obama Boy Scout "Diss"

Agreed on that, BSA does not rate a high opinion from me.

If Obama had turned down the view, FOX news would have come out with a story that says Obama insults all women, by not going on The View, to good to go on a show, with just all women.

Carloz thanks for the links ..... it is coming down to anything; walking across the rose garden? Is now spun as evil on Fox News.

It's funny that he keeps traveling the country, trying to convince us the stimulus worked. How many people are out of work? How many are still losing their homes? That's cool, Obama, we know better. But if it makes you feel better to lie, continue on.

Carloz

A mere two economists? There were around 100 professors of economics, with a few Nobel laureates among them, who in January 2009 pleaded in a full-page article to then President-elect Obama to pursue a different economic policy. Barry flipped them off like the arrogant SOB he is.

I have to laugh at these guys you cited. Blinder was a vice chairman of the Fed, one of governmental agencies that exacerbated the meltdown, a dangerous and powerful agency running some scams that are too secret even for members of Congress to learn of. Zandi was chief economist at Moody's, which was knee-deep in the subprime crisis by rating piles of @!$%#ty mortgage debt as investment grade quality. Now here come these two weasels to crow about how effective the stimulus is.

But let's for the sake of argument take them at their word. And why not? Tossing hundreds of billions of dollars into the private sector should have a salubrious effect. The questions they fail to raise though are:

1. Is it worth $800B?
2. How can we pay off that debt when the economy is circling the bowl and federal revenues will follow?
3. How long will the cocaine high last after the feds snort the last line?

Not the sharpest knives in the drawer these two. Then there's this:

We conclude that [Federal Reserve Chairman] Ben Bernanke was probably right when he said that "We came very close in October [2008] to Depression 2.0."

There's no credible evidence that Great Depression V2.0 isn't in our near future, and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that it is. The amount of financial rot that accreted over 20+ years is still around, a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. The USA is saddled with over $13T of sovereign debt and it's growing faster than ever thanks to the spendthrifts in Washington like Obama and Pelosi.

In other words, we're likely in for the Big Screw. It's already happening across the pond.

Trust the analysis and forecasts from economists at your own peril.

"With five people questioning him, I think it should be pretty unscripted."

A real tough unbiased interview. They love Obama on the View.

"Then there's Liz Hasselbeck"

Liz is a liberal in conservative clothing.

Go Go Goldie was responsible for my first pup tent.

"He is snubbing the Boy Scouts 100th birthday"

Face it, liberals aren't interested in the boy scouts.

Face it, liberals aren't interested in the boyscouts.

while conservatives are a little too interested.

(sorry man, couldn't help it, you put a fastball right over the plate like that...)

"He is snubbing the Boy Scouts 100th birthday"

From my experience with the Boy Scouts, they aren't worth the attention of a real president, let alone Obama. Maybe a mayor, but that's about it.

Agreed. The flap over the boy scouts is absurd. Even they say so. Here, check it out:

http://bluewavenews.com/blog/2010/07/27/obama-v-boy-scouts-conservative-medias-latest-molehill-made-mountainous/

What a strange world we live in when the boy scouts are the sworn enemies of the Democratic Party. But it makes sense. The Democrats are not interested or focused on childrens rights. If they are not aborted then they get in the way of sexual freedom. How selfish!

What nonsense! You read all of that into Obama not going to the BS jamboree? You realize the Scouts knew Obama wasn't going to attend this jubilee for 2 months and that the President will deliver a video message? Your comments remind me, I should be kinder than necessary to the very young Viners here. At 13, perhaps it is likely you see the President in such a skewed manner.

Not a problem.

Unfortunately you are correct: It's hard to reason with the unreasonable.

I just keep chalking this all up to the fact that the right claimed liberals viewed Obama as the messiah and now they seem dumbfounded that he is neither omnipresent nor omnipotent.

Odd. But that seems to fit.

Carloz

Some just hate him, no matter what.

I don't hate the guy. I just detest what he's done and don't find him to be presidential material.

People talk of him reversing the damage GWB did. That's a complete crock. Obama's GWB on steroids. His spending makes a drunken sailor look stingy. His approach to the economy consists of swinging in the dark and tossing money at it, as if that would magically cure things. He loves GWB's war in Afghanistan so much he's sending even more troops to that unwinnable quagmire.

Many people think terrorists are our biggest threat. I don't agree. The most formidable threat is the clear and present danger of Washington politicians running amok, accountable to no one but themselves.

HUH?

RI Mom

INTELLIGENT WOMAN doing a civil , respectful interview

... lobbing softballs ...

some Fox devotees are sure to tune in and get to see something they have never seen before:

I see an intelligent woman doing civil, respectful interviews every time I tune in to America Live.

Buzz kill.

#20.2:

I'm pretty sure that Megyn Kelly will be watching.

RI Mom

I'm pretty sure that Megyn Kelly will be watching.

I dunno. She's got her own show to deliver and wasting an hour watching Obama flap his lips doesn't sound like a good use of her time. It's definitely a waste of mine so I won't be tuning in.

But think of the bright side. As long as Obama's appearing on The View, during all that time he's not hatching more plots to screw up the USA.

At least on the view he was not quite as racist as he is at this moment while delivering another of his rants to yet anothe militant radical racist organization. (The Urban League) Everyday he exhibits more of his racist standings. There is absolutely no doubt as to why he directed his lackey, Eric Holder, to drop charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation. The only thing he has yet to do is raise his fist in yet another exihibition of "Black Power". Keep watching he will do it.