Who remembers when a poster ripped Robert Gibbs a few months ago?

I seem to remember the guy saying Gibbs was a terrible press secretary. That he comes across "smug and arrogant."

Gibbs has completely alienated a White House press corps that was once in Obama's corner. Other than FOX of course. He treats reporters like little children. One day one of their cell phones went off. He made a big show out of taking it away from the guy and hiding it. Does anyone believe that reporter is not going to remember that when he slants his story.

Obama has gone from having a very friendly press, to having a very hostile one. I believe much of it is because of Robert Gibbs. Successful White Houses have people in Gibbs' position that come across likable and easy to understand.

Clinton first put George Stephenopolis in that position. After a few weeks he knew that it just didn't work. Obama refuses to get rid of his Chicago friends. Just because people were good at running a campaign, it does not mean they are good at running a White House. Obama needs to clean house in his communications team. They are incompetent.

He also needs to dump his Chicago friends such as Axelrod, Jarrett, and others. They give this White House the wrong image to independents. Every White House seems to fall into this trap but most fix it sooner than Obama has.

from a 'few' months ago, you just joined yesterday?:shrug:

People ripped that poster calling him a "secret Republican."

for stating the obvious. Robert Gibbs hurts this administration.

If you just read it, why did you start your post with "I seem to remember"?

I believe the post is using the word "just" to mean "only". He's saying that he's not the poster, he "just" read the post. Not "just" meaning yesterday, but only.

Gibbs' smugness has really hurt this White House.

I'm not vouching for this particular poster and I do not claim to know their motives, but it is possible to 'recall' a discussion from before.....

Might I reccomend some reading comprehension courses. My point is that Gibbs has turned much of the media into Fox News when it comes to covering this White House. The negative coverage is mind boggling.

There are simply not enough far righites, or far lefties to elect anyone. It is who wins over the center. I don't like it either but it is now and has always been political reality.

I've met too many one-issue voters call themselves independent. Being tied to a political litmus test isn't being independent, it's simply not caring about which party leans your way.

This has always been the case.

THe poress secretary is supposed to present facts and be one of the administration's sales people to the public.

The press and the President's press secretary are supposed to have an adversarial relationship. It is the duty of the press to challenge what the press secretary says and it is the duty of the press secretary to answer and inform in a way that sheds the best light on the administration.

Perhaps you are young and don't know this.

and people didn't like his mannerisms. Iirc, I said this White House was full of smart people and that they'd settle into the job.

comments attacking democrats. He is ineffective, and comes across as a wimp, always has.

His worst moment imo, was when he was asked why the Government didn't take over BP once it became clear that they were lying and had never had a plan to handle a disaster such as the one that just happened. Gibbs looked like a deer caught in the head-lights when he responded 'But, but, we can't do that, they are a private Corporation'.

Nearly everyone I know was stunned by that comment. It was as if he was saying that the U.S. government has no power over private corps no matter how much harm they may do to this country.

And now that I have learned what he did to Dean, I have zero respect in him. Surely the Dem. Party has smarter, less right-leaning people who could have been put in that position.

Technically Gibbs is supposed to communicate the administrations point of view. It is difficult when the press secretary is communicating badly to tell if it is him, or if he is in essence giving an accurate representation of the administration. Gibbs isn't the only one. Timmy never interviews well. Axelrod twisted himself into a pretzel trying to explain Obama's position after the Prop 8 decision. Obama himself did the whole "the mosque should be allowed there, but I'm not saying it shoud go there" schtick.

To some extent he's got a particularly hard job. Obama and company came into town wanting to "change the tone". A big part of that tone is the press. One can make the case that he is attempting to "retrain" the press corps to "ask different questions". The transition could be expected to be difficult.

But I suspect that's only part of it. Obama hasn't indicated he particularly wants to "stay on message". He wants to be vastly more nimble than that and wants to move his positions as a function of the politics. The result is that the press secretary is probably tending to find out about the same time we are that he is suddenly pro-mandates and cadillac taxes and that the public option is suddenly not important and nothing that Obama campaigned upon. Between those political considerations, and the need to stay out in front of the internal fights that break out over torture photos, DoJ attempts to try Gitmo folks in civilian trials, and the Deepwater disaster, he is probably limited in his ability to manage the message like he would prefer.

That said, tuff. This is the big leagues and you peform or you leave. More than one head coach has gotten fired because of bad trades by a General Manager. Obama ain't going anywhere so he needs a press secretary that can perform in the environment that Obama creates. That apparently may not be Gibbs. If so, so be it.

around to find their stories. Here is the question--do you
believe the Media are inspired with confidence when they see
Gibbs????

It may not be fair, but the Media like Decisiveness, very
straightforward answers from people in whom they have
confidence.

Here is one area the WH needs to improve. They need to explain
exactly and CONCRETELY the how and why of decisions. It is very
easy and understandable that when you deal with and have very
smart people all around you, they can follow and fill in the
blanks for themselves. However you must change and explain
at much lower level and much more descriptive when speaking
to the American Public.

It would be very interesting to see Obama's approval ratings
if he had a different set of close advisors. Just a thought
I have had for some time.

Some people are easily fooled here, but not most.