Obama's Ultimate Weasel Word: Create or 'Save' 2.5 Million Jobs

Obama's Ultimate Weasel Word: Create or 'Save' 2.5 Million Jobs

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 11/24/2008 - 07:18 ET

Transcript from press conference of Pres. Barack Obama, Feb. 12th, 2011:

CNSNEWS.COM: Mr. President, when you first took office you promised to create 2.5 million jobs by January, 2011. But the Labor Department report issued yesterday indicates that in fact 1.7 million jobs were lost during that period. Why did your plan fail?

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: Ah, but it didn't fail. To the contrary, we succeeded beyond all expectations. You misquoted our promise. We said we would create or "save" 2.5 million jobs. And a report prepared by my White House team being distributed to you demonstrates that had we not taken the bold steps we did back in 2009, we would by now have lost 5.8 million jobs. We therefore in fact saved 4.1 million jobs, more than 50% greater than the number of jobs we promised to save. So our program has been a huge success. Let's see, Keith, you had a question?

KEITH OLBERMANN: Yes, Mr. President. You are so wonderful, sir. Please comment, if you would, sir.

The "or save" makes Obama's plan virtually fail-proof. No matter how many jobs are lost, Obama will always be able to claim that things would have been much worse were it not for his plan. To his credit, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd pointed out the verbal sleight of hand on today's Morning Joe.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

When Obama first floated the plan in his Weekly Address via YouTube on November 21st, he said [1:20 in] "I have already directed my economic team to come up with an economic recovery plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011."

That was 2.5 million "more" jobs. And that's how it was reported, as in the AP's November 22nd story whose headline read "Obama economic plan aims for 2.5M new jobs by 2011." But, as CNN reported, the Obama transition website later "clarified" that he meant "create or save" 2.5 million jobs.

The nuance didn't slip by Chuck Todd, speaking during the opening segment of today's Morning Joe.

CHUCK TODD: But I love the create [air quotes] "and save." Or save jobs. This isn't about creating 2.5 million jobs. I mean they want that number out there, and if people accidentally think it's 2.5 million [new] jobs, they won't care.

Will the rest of the MSM pick up on Obama's economic prestidigation?

Note: over at the Early Show, Dean Reynolds failed to pick up on the nuance. He reported that Obama's new plan "would create over the next two years over two million new jobs."

View Early Show video here.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Will the rest of the MSM

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 07:43 ET by Seashell

Will the rest of the MSM pick up on Obama's economic prestidigation?

I don't know about this particular issue, but I think that slowly the MSM will actually start to do real and truthful reporting. They know what they did to get their guy elected, but now they have to redeem themselves with the public to regain credibilty.

Mark Halperin came out first, now Chuck Todd. We shall see if others start to follow suit.

Yes, and the media in 2004 was merciless on Bush

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 10:23 ET by jondelwiche

It got wide media play in the run up to the 2004 election
That W might be the first President since Hoover to have
negative job creation. The fact Bush, like Obama, assumed
control during a downturn garnered Bush NO sympathy.

Let's see how President Obama's job numbers get played
in the next election.

the msm coached them on

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 10:59 ET by TruthMonger

the msm coached them on this - being on the dnc payroll and all

obama will need (create air quotes:) "a lot of COACHING" over the next four years

whover will be running the country this next POTUS term it sure as hell ain't mr. handsome-articulate-blackman-in an empty-suit

not sure if that's comforting or not

Dominate education now

MSNBC

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 12:07 ET by capav

Has the "revised" version of job claims as a lead story on their website.

Mark, did I miss

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 08:13 ET by motherbelt

Mark, did I miss something?

Reading the WaPo story, it starts out:

President-elect Barack Obama is developing a plan to create or preserve 2.5 million jobs over the next two years

and it's hard to tell if he actually changed the wording, or if the media describing it that way.

(Yesterday Kathleen McKinley's posting reported the same wording from AP:

On Saturday, Obama announced his plan to save or create 2.5 million jobs)

If it's the MSM rewording it, I'd say it's just more of their covering his...er.... flank.

If he did actually change it, then it's just "recalibrating" something that was "inartfully" expressed. ;-)

Motherbelt, I've now gotten

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 08:30 ET by Mark Finkelstein

Motherbelt, I've now gotten to the bottom of it. In his YouTube address, Obama spoke of 2.5 million "more" jobs. But his official transition website later "clarified" that by that he meant "create or preserve" 2.5 million jobs. You'll see a discussion, with links, in my item now.

Thanks, Mark!

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:00 ET by motherbelt

Thanks, Mark!

I was right...it's just more "recalibrating" of an "inartfully expressed" idea.

Also known as the "same old okey-doke."

jobs

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 08:28 ET by dmntd1

I believe the BLS shows the number of jobs, however every time I went to that site, it locked up my browser.

Any idea how many jobs have been CREATED in the past 7, almost 8, years, under President Bush?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill

As the MSM has so artfully shown recently

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 08:34 ET by c5then

It matters not what any candidate, politician or government official says. The ONLY thing that matters is what the press reports. The MSM got Obama elected using this new paradigm, the question is what will they do with it now that they have 'changed the world'?

Reality is going to hit Obama smack in the face as he and his 'advisors' come to grips with the reality that the Government can't mandate the creation of new jobs or the retention of jobs by companies that are in financial trouble. The ONLY thing that Government can do is to promote a climate that is conducive to business growth. That means that taxes can't go up. Different sectors are in different cycles and you can't favor one over the other or you simply move the problem (as they are finding out now). It's the Financial Corporations .vs. the US Auto Manufacturers. Will we be left with stupid and idiotically run financial businesses and re-organized smaller and leaner auto manufacturers? Or vice versa. Or, more likely....both

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012

BTW....I can't find the

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:06 ET by motherbelt

BTW....I can't find the link again, but I read somewhere earlier that Obama is going to have a press conference at noon today to unveil his economic plan?

Isn't this a bit presumptuous, since he can't implement anything for two more months at least?

It seems to me that he wants to overshadow Bush at every opportunity, and have it both ways: making Bush more of a lame duck and then criticizing him for not doing more when Congress seems content to wait until January.

I don't recall other Presidents-elect acting this way, (the whole "Office of the President-elect" thing etc.) but I could be wrong.

Well, the main thrust of the

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:09 ET by Mark Finkelstein

Well, the main thrust of the press conference will be to introduce his economic team along with discussing his plans. Under all the circumstances I wouldn't criticize him for that.

OK, you have a point.

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:53 ET by motherbelt

But will the networks be required to air a response or an opposing view?

\sarc

"Will the networks be

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:55 ET by Mark Finkelstein

"Will the networks be required to air a response or an opposing view?"

Yes. From Paul Krugman ;-)

But seriously, Krugman was on GMA yesterday and the Early Show today. His criticism of the Obama plan is that it probably doesn't . . . spend enough.

Wow, that's way harsh, Mr.

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 10:08 ET by motherbelt

Wow, that's way harsh, Mr. Krugman!! LOL

BTW, I was looking for the "bankrupt the coal industry" audio for my reply to KC's posting below, and when I got the to SF Gate print edition story and went to the "In his own words" section I found this gem that really fits right in with this posting:

On his own view of what makes his campaign different (emphasis added):

"And that's part of the reason why I think we have been getting people who are turned off to politics attracted to my campaign. ... They sense that I don't try to trim my sails."

Me too!

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:18 ET by JWF

I am going to be personally responsible for preventing the deaths of thousands from Rabid Bands of Baboons in all lands east of the Mississippi!

But JWF, there are no rabid bands of baboons east or west of the Mississippi.

Ah, my work is finished. I can rest. Thank me now.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

→ Thanks JWF

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:45 ET by Cool Arrow

But your job is easy.

They also serve who stand and wait for rabid baboons. - Joe Biden

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Of course, with Joe

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:22 ET by marpel

Of course, with Joe Scarborough on another vacation, Mika's fangs came out this a.m. also. She was continuously blaming the Bush admin for all the economic woes we have. Someone needs to flatly address, with this miserable idiot, that the dawnings of this horrible mess we're in began with the Clinton admin, not the Bush admin. As I recall, Bush warned of this crisis coming years ago, but because the MSM hate him, they under reported it.

I just hope to God, when he leaves office, that Bush addresses this 8 year blame game and set the record straight.

When Joe is away, Mika has

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:50 ET by motherbelt

When Joe is away, Mika has no adult supervision.

Shuster certainly isn't going to call her to task on anything she says.

She has bought the "failed policies of the Bush administration" line for our troubles, ignoring the fact that it was the Bush admin who argued that the Fannie/Freddie house of cards was ready to topple.

I think I 'll try to email her a link to this video of the hearings....and ask her what positions in the Bush administration Maxine Waters, Lacy Clay, Barney Franks, and Gregory Meeks hold.

Motherbelt, I think that's a

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 10:32 ET by marpel

Motherbelt, I think that's a great idea. Of course, you'll probably NEVER hear from her. Why would she admit she's full of it?

One man's art is another man's lie ...

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:41 ET by KC Mulville

Notice how Todd wasn't criticizing Obama for his weaselly rhetoric. Had George Bush said the same thing, the chorus would chant that Bush was awkwardly trying to slip something past us. But since it's Obama, the chorus is praising it as artful rhetoric.

It's almost a Rorschach(sp?) test, comparing what Obama actually says against what's actually reported. No matter what Obama says, he can count on the media's inherent bias to smooth it out and present it in the most favorable light.

Hell, at this point, Obama could proclaim that he's destroying an industry, and the media would report that Obama's granting the workers some days off, or he's getting them prepared for their next jobs ...

KC, Have you had a chance to

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:44 ET by Mark Finkelstein

KC, Have you had a chance to view the video? I think Todd was criticizing Obama. He was being sarcastic when he said he "loved" Obama's use of "save," and Todd went on to point out that the Obama team would be happy if people were misled about what he meant. I'd call that criticism.

Not so sure, Mark

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 11:00 ET by KC Mulville

Saw the clip, but I don't know if that clinches the argument. You may be right, but we have a conflict of assumptions.

You can admire a thief's skill, even if you know that stealing is a crime. Like lawyers, politicians have to be skilled in rhetoric. Obama is perhaps overrated as a rhetorician ("we are who we've been waiting for" is now a punchline), but he's still better than most of the other stiffs out there.
Like Johnny Cochrane, you can believe that he's being utterly misleading, while still appreciating Cochrane's skill in using rhetoric to mislead.

Was Todd scolding Obama, or just appreciating the skill? When I saw Todd, I took him to be admiring the skill, and that he didn't much care whether the statement was misleading. Todd said nothing to suggest that he considers Obama to be a liar. It's just all good, clean, political fun.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But that only reveals how much I distrust the media.

I'd say the key is that,

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 11:17 ET by Mark Finkelstein

I'd say the key is that, whatever his personal opinion, Todd called attention to the ruse. Put yourself in the role of an Obama transition person: were you happy to have Obama called out that way? I don't think so.

Media

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 11:43 ET by KC Mulville

How the Obama camp feels? Honestly, I think they don't care. History shows that these little revelations don't hurt at all.

Notice how every "policy position" that Obama has taken so far, he's abrogated. Campaign finance, Iraq pullout, rescind the tax cuts, etc. The most changed thing in Washington these days is Obama's own mind. But he hasn't been called on any of it. Journalists point out the changes in passing, more in observation than indictment. I guess that was my impression of Todd's comment. It was merely an observation, but it wasn't an indictment.

So here's the deeper philosophical discussion: Is it the media's job to:

... observe and merely display (trusting the public to respond where needed)?
... observe and indict?

Most conservatives feel that with Democrats or liberals, the media merely displays their conduct. But when it comes to Republicans or conservatives, the media also indict. That's where the double standard comes in.

So, Mark, what do you think? Is it the media's job to indict, or do you think they should follow Fox's model: we report, you decide?

Hell, KC....Obama actually

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:59 ET by motherbelt

Hell, KC....Obama actually did say that he would destroy the coal industry, and the media yawned....

Oh, excuse me, they not only yawned, the SF Chronicle did cover up for him by not reporting that little gem in its printed story (scroll down to the Update of the posting).

Yeah

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 11:08 ET by KC Mulville

To a ridiculous degree, I think, the media hears what it wants to hear. If Obama said that he was going to bomb Bolivia, confiscate church property, raise the minimum wage, tax gasoline an extra 20%, and appoint "Simon the Cranky" to the Supreme Court ... the media would report how conservatives were trying to keep wages down.

Obama's MSM fig leaf

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 10:42 ET by nkviking75

The MSM will protect Obama no matter what. Remember how the libs kept harping on the jobs lost at the beginning of Bush's term (a product of the Clinton recession he inherited) and ignored the jobs created long after the recovery began?

Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!

Mr. Obama fills me with

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 10:59 ET by RR GOP

Mr. Obama fills me with renewed confidence every time he opens his mouth. NOT.

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

What utter B.S.

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 11:03 ET by Karin

Obama never even took Econ 101, even at the high school level. Create (or even save) any number of jobs is contradictory to taxing the hell out of all job creators. Any so-called plan we see out of him will be made of the stuff filling out his suit.

Way...in...over...his...head.