Huffington Post has gone out of their way to present a very uncomplimentary image of Obama

[still_one]

I have no problem with the argument they are presenting, but I do have a problem with other things they are implying with the picture of Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[meowomon]

1. Pretty bad pic

They didn't have to do that.

[still_one]

6. There is no question in my mind they are trying to give the impression that he is "evil"

[SidDithers]

2. HuffPo has become an online tabloid...

there might be the odd good item, but you have to wade through vats of shit to find it.

Sid

[still_one]

7. Not too far off from Drudge /nt

[MadHound]

3. I think that you're being oversensitive.

Sorry, but not everybody takes those wonderful bright shiny pictures of the president, any president. This is simply a candid photo, I see no big deal about it:shrug:

[sui generis]

9. agreed - reading tea leaves is so . . . crystal ball gazerish

gotta hate those brazillian megapixel digital cameras. They would make the holy sweet baby jeebus look like his holy diaper had a holy crap in it.

[babylonsister]

4. Seems like you went out of your way, too.

You're criticizing HuffPo but doing the same thing? :shrug:

[still_one]

8. I am stating my opinion of a photograph associated with an article about "greedy" bankers

[bvar22]

47. Obama has associated himslf with"Greedy Bankers".

Greedy Bankers were the #1 source for Obama's campaign cash in 2008.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Maybe they misplaced the one posing in front of the Superman statue

[QC]

28. Yeah, but they could have used the swimsuit pinup. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

10. I saw that on F.R. last night. I actually like that image. That's his, "I'm not fuckin around" look

I'll bet some agree.

[gateley]

12. Me! Me! I agree, NYC-SKP, and just posted a response saying so. And I'm pretty

sure we're not the only two people who read it that way. :hi:

[NYC_SKP]

16. YAY! That's some serious Obama right there. Like, "Imma kick your ass" Obama...

:hi:

:toast:

[Sal Minella]

15. "I'm serious here, listen up!" is what that pic says to me,

but I'm not a Feerful Freeper.

I'm sure a person thinking in public frightens them terribly.

[gateley]

11. I actually see him as looking serious, focused and intense -- I think it's a good

photo. In the eye of the beholder, I guess. Maybe the person selecting the photo sees it as I do? :shrug:

[Mari333]

13. looks like I did when I found out he was condoning killing US citizens

same face

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Silly. IMHO, he looks thoughtful there.

[GoCubsGo]

18. Yes. But, he has really, really big pores.

And, lots of freckles. His skin is not perfect, and that's a bad, bad thing.

:sarcasm:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. Damn them

for not using a darn airbrush!

:rofl:

[JamesA1102]

17. Arrianna Huffington has never been a liberal.

She a libertarian who didn't like Bush. She was unfairly critical of Hillary Clinton for years, pushed lies about Al Gore and has been very negative about Obama from almost his first day in office. Ms. Huffington has allied herself with Obama-haters like Squinty and the Meat Puppet, throwing them book parties and worse, strictly moderating all reponses to articles about them on her website.

[Greybnk48]

37. I agree with James, although I don't know who Squinty and Meat Puppet are.

She is not, and has never been a liberal, and has been very negative of Obama and his administration from day one.

[JamesA1102]

41. Morning Joke and Mika the Miserable nt

[Greybnk48]

45. OMG! That's hilarious. n/t

[monmouth]

19. I just left a comment there, probably won't get posted but HP has

become a dump. The story is totally distorted and now implies that Obama is all for these obscene payouts.

[still_one]

24. Yes, the quotes and other things were distorted out of context, but it was the picture that

disturbed me, because there is no doubt in my mind that the image was to associate with "greedy bankers", and it was intentional, instead of a neutral photograph

[JamesA1102]

46. Their policy regarding comments is really egregious

Anytime you post a comment that factually disputes the narrative they are selling it gets deleted even if it adhere to their guidelines.

[AllentownJake]

20. Headline: I don't begrudge Bank CEOS for their Bonuses

Seems like the picture matches the headline.



You'd rather have a smiling Obama with that picture?

[still_one]

21. No, but a neutral picture would have been fine /nt

[AllentownJake]

25. The author of the article is taking issue with the President on a liberal

position and him taking a conservative one...so I'm guessing the next line is they are in line with Tea Baggers.

The President called Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankenfien savvy businessmen. Businessmen so Savvy they required taxpayer money to save their firms is the gist of the article and the President doesn't get it is the gist.

How many Right Wingers are out there talking about executive compensation right now?

Did you click the article or are you a picture person.

[still_one]

30. There is no doubt that picture was an association with "greedy bankers". and yes, I read the

article, which was an opinion piece, and that wasn't my objection.

[JVS]

22. LOL

[Tempest]

27. The headline may be misleading

HP is using selective quotes from a full interview which won't be released until Friday.

It would be best to wait to see the context in which the quotes are stated.

[still_one]

31. Yes it is misleading, as is the photograph /nt

[AllentownJake]

35. He defends Dimon and Blankefien and compares them to Baseball players

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

Q Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of "say on pay," that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs' success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, you've stated the problem Mr. President, but only part of the problem. Most corporate charters are written to ensure this is continued based on the way board members are selected. That and most people own mutual funds have a pension, or an annuity not stocks, so you have one group of highly paid CEOs casting their votes in a board election not individual share holders.

The problem is CEOs put their buddies on the board with them who vote how they are paid.

I'll be interested to hear the President's solution.

At the end of the day, the baseball player that makes 17 million who doesn't make it to the World Series never asked the US Congress to bail out his team so that he could continue making 17 million dollars because no one wants to see him play.

[Tempest]

38. He's not comparing them favorably

You're misreading what he's saying.

[AllentownJake]

39. Baseball players as an analogy?

Most people like Baseball and Baseball players. Take a walk in the real world in April to November in America and look for all the people wearing team logos, player jerseys and T-shirts, and go to a popular bar and see what is on TV.

Some tough language there.

I guess he could compare them to the US Military Personnel or Movie Stars for something that isn't considered more liked by the country. :sarcasm:

[blondeatlast]

23. I think it's a powerful image.

Nothing wrong with an extreme close-up of someone about to kick ass.

Still HuffPo is seriously starting to suck.

[JVS]

29. "about to kick some ass". Always future, never past.

[closeupready]

49. I agree. Huff Post has too much moderation and censorship.

And the constant, unrelenting Obama criticism has entered 'bash' territory and is not constructive.

[blondeatlast]

51. Ah, but it makes Ms. H seem so cutting edge, and appearances are all that matter. nt

[closeupready]

54. I suppose so, to some people.

To those of us like you and I (people who think), we see it for what it is - essentially, verbal theatrics. And I'm reading the comments from readers, and seems like many others share my view - "what do you want from him then? screaming? jumping up and down?" So I feel reassured that I'm not off-base at all.

[Raschel]

26. Yes. And I'm tired of the mantra of how unliked he is by his base.

[lunatica]

32. He even takes a good 'mean' photo

I even like the way it's cropped. It's obvious to any artist or photographer what the intent of the photo is. It narrows down to the expression in the eyes.

I like it because it shows a very serious no nonsense side. I'd whither if he were looking at me in this photo.

[polichick]

33. imo he looks like he means business - that's a good thing. nt

[still_one]

34. Or he looks like a ruthless banker /nt

[polichick]

36. But he's not a banker; he's a president who needs to kick some ass. nt

[xiamiam]

40. Huffpo has not posted a 'brand' smiling image of Obama for several months

I noticed immediately and apporve actually..not one of that beutiful charismatic smile photos for a long time..Huffpo is one of the best sources for wall street financial crimes (with links) still and I normally go there everyday as I come here as well..

have to wade thru nonsense at both sites..too much tabloid celebrity nonsense going at Huffpo

too much preoccupation with Palin, Scarborough, etc here at DU..as well as the amazing acceptance of the charismatic president regardless of what the policies are

[Roselma]

42. This isn't the first time

that Huffpo has done this. They have posted unflattering or downright sinister-looking pics of Obama on a number of occasions since last fall. I think they've turned into the semi-Drudge in that respect. I think Arianna has turned against Obama since he didn't address the financial/economic crisis, particularly Wall Street and the banks, the way she'd hoped, so now her site treats Obama this way. Let's face it...plenty of us here on DU have said very discouraging things about Obama too. He's definitely better than his 2008 opponent is or would have been, but not good enough for bloggers and the internet news aggregators. This subtle move might help in increasing resistance to Obama and the Democrats, but I'm not sure that the alternative (Republicans) will be any better. Nobody needs to praise Obama, but demonizing him is probably not helpful in the long run. Look at the alternative...McCain/Palin...and thank our lucky stars that they didn't win.

[WilliamPitt]

43. He looks pissed.

Good.

[western mass]

44. Expression says: F* U, taxpayers.

I'd say it illustrates the article pretty well.

[spanone]

50. it says fuck you republicans to me

[still_one]

52. Except everything about this is taken out of context. If you were or are watching Bloomberg

they are saying just the opposite of what the headline portrays

In fact the headline not only takes what he said out of context, but distorts it entirely

Read the full context in a few days

[NYC_SKP]

48. That's the face Sasha and Malia never, ever, want to see! n/t

[lunatica]

55. LOL! It's the face Sasha and Malia's BOYFRIENDS never want to see!

[wowimthere]

56. She's been going Morning Joe too often

[chowder66]

57. Read the actual excerpts....

In regard to the baseball analogy....Obama is just saying that large payouts do not seem to be logically merited! That's all. He used a high paying profession such as a highly valued sports player as an example. He is not "softening" on the bank bonuses. He is discussing a couple of the problems he sees. I'm sure he has a lot more to say on it (which he has) but if this interview is any indication, the less said; the better....seems that some Posters at the NYT under Krugman's OMG oped can't handle comprehending a few sentences.