Barack Obama

President Obama Apologizes to Kamala Harris, Can Still Mislead on Guns, Sequester, Propose a Budget No One Likes

Apologizes for causing a distraction, but not to Jack Conway


California Office of the Attorney General

On Wednesday in Denver, the president made several misleading comments about gun policies. The mainstream media is increasingly picking up on the fact that sequestration isn't the calamity his administration promised. Both Republicans and Democrats are upset by the president's budget proposal, which also came two months late. So what did the president apologize for today? Calling California's Kamala Harris, "by far the best looking attorney general in the country." Was Jack Conway upset?

In fact, Jay Carney said the president called her to apologize for the distraction the comments caused. Obama's not a stranger to the wheel of outrage, having apologized in 2008 for calling a Michigan television reporter "sweetie." At the LA Times, Robin Abcarian offered that the president's remarks were more "wolfish" than "sexist" but then pointed out the obvious, that looks matter. She concluded by repeating that no one would've cared what the "gorgeous" Sarah Palin had to say if she didn't have good looks, a familiar trope used to diminish Palin's political positions. Obama, of course, didn't do that this time. He even prefaced his comments on Harris by calling her "brilliant" and "dedicated." But he apologized anyway.

And you can say you were there, when the president apologized for innocent drone deaths his foreign policy his economic policies getting some things wrong drawing attention to his opinion on a politician's good looks.

NEXT: More Senators Declare Support for Same-Sex Marriage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s shameful to be sure, but Diane Feinstein would never have made it as far as she has if she weren’t the best-looking woman in Washington, DC.

    1. And standing in Barbara Boxer’s shadow in the looks department made it that much tougher!

    2. Can we not go down the Feinstein visual road again like this morning?

      It ended up with bad porn begin relinked from an earlier thread.

      It’s friday people. Let’s stick with the theme of this post, Whitehouse misogyny and Kamala Harris-hot or not?

      I don’t know why people think she’s hot though. She’s a comfortable “meh” for me.

      1. It’s all relative: compared to the other two CA politicians who will not be re-named…

      2. Kamala Harris: Hot

        That is all.

      3. I don’t know about hot, but the best looking Attorney General seems likely.

        1. What about Florida’s Pam Bondi?

          1. Not bad. Not bad at all. How recent is that photo I wonder?

            1. How recent is that photo I wonder?

              Older, but still not bad.

              1. Thing is, she *looks* like someone named Pam Bondi should look.

          2. Not too shabby. Harris is more to my taste though.

          3. Hotter than Bondi.

          4. Bondi, cannot, by definition, be Hot, as she is a Republican … pearl-clutcher …

        2. None of the men are giving her competition.

          1. I like #4 because Holder is definitely looking at his ass.

            1. #3 has an expression I associate with the very simple.

              1. “I’m Helping!!”

              2. For the record, this is Greg Abbott without that ridiculous look on his face. Still not exactly a sex kitten, but he looks much better.

                I have no idea why they used that absurd picture in an article about him being good looking.

                1. Possibly because it the article was at least partially a snark on conservatives who complained that Obama was getting away with sexism.

                  When spawn of Biden is at the top of the list you know that all hope is lost.

                  1. Why can’t children of politicians grow up to be useful contributing members of society rather than following in their parents’ plundering footsteps?

                    1. Bush 41 was defeated because of ross perot, as was mccain by 0.1%. Google before blogging please. 43 won by a much larger margin than did clinton. Obamas not out of the woods yet. He has ticked me off but i still vote for my local blues.

                    2. Not to be rude. Come on…just like every other stupid parent that doesn’t realize children learn by example.

      4. I’m not sure I’d go with HOT but she’s definitely in the attractive column.

        1. “I wouldn’t call the nigga fat, but he definitely got a weight problem. I mean, what the nigga gonna do, he half Samoan?”

      5. Hard to tell from still pics alone. Kimberly Guilfoyle looks good in photos, but it’s not until you see her wiggling in the Leg Chair that her true appeal comes across.

  2. he concluded by repeating that no one would’ve cared what the “gorgeous” Sarah Palin had to say if she didn’t have good looks, a familiar trope used to diminish Palin’s political positions.

    That’s an absurd claim. Regardless of what you think of Sarah Palin, she is incredibly charismatic.

    1. *shudders* No. No. No. no no no no. Ignorant, folksy and an unwillingness to be accountable for one’s actions does not make a person charismatic.

      And while she isn’t homely I wouldn’t say she’s HOT either.

      1. Are you serious? Have you ever heard the woman speak? She’s dumb as a post, but she knows how to hold an audience.

        Remember the days after her Republican National Convention speech, when she basically single handedly gave John McCain his only lead of the entire election?

        Again, dumb as a post, but I don’t think you can argue with the results.

        1. Actually, I disagree that SP is “dumb as a post”, but I do think she was frightfully ill-prepared for the ’08 contest.

          I will add that she also does seem to be awfully intellectually incurious. I doubt that she has ever bothered to read the classics, as evidenced by her not knowing what an “Achilles heal” was, in fact, I doubt she has read much more than what was assigned in whatever English Lit classes she took.

          For many things in American life most of this doesn’t matter but when you’re trying to craft an image as someone who is prepared to be “the leader of the free world”, you’re at a definite disadvantage when you can’t even deal with questions from Katy Couric.

          1. Methinks she was reined in by Sen McCain who is not known for fighting dirty. He thought he could win on the merits versus a newcomer.

    2. Sarah Palin belongs to that special category of visually attractive women who begin to gravely disappoint from the instant they speak. Sometimes it’s an easy dismissal, and sometimes it’s a little more bittersweet…

  3. Question, are the Amanda Marcotte types ranting and raving about how sexist the president is?

    If not, is someone badgering the piss out of them insisting it’s very sexist, throwing their own past quotes in their faces and lamenting how they tossed feminism under the bus for partisanship?

    1. Hey, Bill Clinton getting blown by a lowly intern wasn’t an exercise of power differential, it was “just sex”.

      1. Bill Clinton smacking Paula whats-her-name around wasn’t a problem either…

      2. He did not have sexual relations with the woman, Monica Lewinsky.

        It depends on what your definition of is is.

    2. In fact Marcotte did right an article on this. Someone linked to it in the P.M. Links. She made sure to talk about how he’s usually a good feminist though.

      1. I of course meant write not right.

  4. She’s very articulate and clean for an AG.

  5. Man, Obama finally says something that wasn’t a lie or an error and he gets shafted for it.

  6. Yikes. Are the others that bad? That’s a low ceiling.

  7. Dude, you know he wants to hit that!

    1. Yes, he does, Tiggy. Yes, he does.

      Although to be honest they kind of look like they could be related, which would be weird.

    2. You are so on it SumpTump. He so does want to hit that!

    3. I bet if he hasn’t already. They had a pic of them on CNN and she is seriously looking at him like she is in love with him. Obama is an idiot that doesn’t think before he speaks. He apologized because someone told him he had to because people would be pissed off. I really don’t think it matters that he made the comment. Because he says idiotic crap all the time. I am a female. And, the only part of it that pisses me off is that if any other male in Corporate America made a public comment like that. They would most likely get in some kind of trouble. How fair is that. If he can make a comment like that then every male in America DAM WELL better be able to also.

  8. The mainstream media is increasingly picking up on the fact that sequestration isn’t the calamity his administration promised.

    We can only hope there will be a similar response to the president’s stupid grandstanding BRAIN* Initiative, such as that heard on NPR this morning.

    * “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies”. We can all be thankful that it happened to acronym that way. More embarrassing would have been “Scientific Coordinated Research Oriented To Understand the Mind”.

    1. That was the best laugh of the day

  9. How long has Michelle been a single mother, now?

    1. Oh that was so funny that she said that. Where has he been spending his nights. I bet when he is no longer President they won’t be married anymore. Any bets…

  10. Obama sure pulled a boner on this one.

    1. He has

      1. That reminds me, my Def Leppard tribute band needs a new drummer.

  11. “In fact, Jay Carney said the president called her to apologize for the distraction the comments caused.”

    Oh yeah, that’s why he called.

    Bow chicka wow wow.

  12. Kamala, who couldn’t sing, kept the beat and kept it strong.

  13. “Whey de white wimmen at?”

  14. Sure wist this article was about Obama apologizing to Kamala the Ugandan Giant.

    1. Spit my beer out. Was hoping for the same thing when I saw URL.

  15. Oh, noooooo!

    Fisker Automotive, the struggling government-backed hybrid sports car maker, on Friday terminated most of its rank-and-file employees in what sources said was a last-ditch effort to conserve cash and stave off a potential bankruptcy filing.

    Fisker, which raised $1.2 billion (782.2 million pounds) from investors and tapped nearly $200 million in government loans, has “at least” $30 million in cash on hand, according to a source familiar with the company’s finances.

    About 160 workers were fired at a Friday morning meeting at Fisker’s Anaheim, California, headquarters, according to a source who attended the meeting. They were told that the company could not afford to give them severance payments.

    Who will save the luxury golf cart makers?

    (as if we did not know)

    1. “and tapped nearly $200 million in government loans, has “at least” $30 million in cash on hand,”

      So we get $0.15 on the dollar? Hey, it beats Obozo’s picks so far.

  16. Mother Jones asked his campaign if Cuccinelli or anyone working for his campaign had ever engaged in any of the prohibited conduct and whether Cuccinelli would fire any campaign staff who had done so. We have received no response. But if Cuccinelli’s campaign is being run by criminals against nature, don’t the voters have a right to know?

    1. I linked to this before – he’s *not* trying to prosecute sodomitical acts between consenting adults, and these news reports are highly misleading.

      He wants to apply the anti-sodomy law to a guy who propositioned a 17-year-old girl. As he points out, this sort of behavior, regardless of what we think of the stiff sentence the guy guy, is *not* protected by the *Lawrence* decision.

      He concedes that Lawrence doesn’t allow the prosecution of adult sodomy. But Lawrence *does* allow the prosecution of crimes like this. The dispute is over whether the Virginia courts should be able to apply the law to things like sex with minors, or whether the law is facially invalid, even as applied to activities not protected by Lawrence. The Va courts said yes, the guy could be prosecuted, the federal court said no by a 2-1 vote.

      There’s also the question of federal court power. In cases like this, the federal courts can only second-guess a state court if the state court was clearly misapplying existing precedent. If there’s a reasonable legal debate over the allowability of facial challenges, then federal courts owe deference to the state courts.

      1. Read his brief for yourself – nowhere does he say that adult sodomy should be prosecuted, and these journalists and bloggers who said otherwise should be ashamed of themselves:…..dMoose.pdf

        I suppose you could argue that the guy is being excessively punished for soliciting the teen girl, but even if true, that’s a different argument than we’re getting in the media and the blogs.

      2. Huh, EvH, you misunderstand my reason for posting that. I’m familiar with the case Kristen posted up something about it a day or two ago and I thought it was funny if they were asking if he or his staff had participated in anything that would set them afoul of the law.

        I understand what he’s trying to prosecute, but a law that bans oral sex is silly because it’s going to be capriciously prosecuted, and this is a perfect example of how. If their statutory rape laws are insufficiently punitive then they should stiffen those penalties(the girl was 17, several states age of consent is 16 or 17, and the UK and Canada both have an age of consent of 16).

        1. Fine, but the article you linked to more than insinuates that he wants to prosecute adult sodomy:

          “Cuccinelli…recently petitioned a federal court to reverse its ruling that the state’s archaic “Crimes Against Nature” law is unconstitutional. That statute outlaws oral and anal sex between consenting adults?gay or straight, married or single”

          Then they finally get around to pointing out the case is about a minor, but they then cast doubt on his sincerity – leaving readers to infer that he’s using the abuse of a teenager as an entering wedge to criminalize voluntary adult sodomy.

          This is not responsible journalism. Even a cursory glance at his legal brief would show he’s not trying to punish adult sodomy.

          You’re making an actual argument against his actual position. The article you linked to, not so much.

          1. Therefore, accepting his brief (I should say petition) would not in any way endanger his staff if they engage in voluntary sodomy in private. I don’t blame him for ignoring this silly and ignorant question.

          2. It’s Mother Jones, why would you expect responsible journalism? I linked it because I think it’s excellent that they’re calling him out on the fact that he’s likely run afoul of the law. It’s the height of hypocrisy to keep laws on the books that you have or continue to violate just so you can use them as a cudgel against characters you don’t like. Please see the drug war and politicians who have previously admitted to drug use for further examples. MJ was correct to point out that the law could be used against adults, it just isn’t in this case.

            1. No, because of Lawrence, the law *can’t* be used against consensual sodomy in private. Again, Cuccinelli is *not* challenging this aspect of the Lawrence decision.

              Now, if he was in the habit of soliciting BJs from underage girls, yes, he’d be a hypocrite.

              1. Ah, I see, I misread an article yesterday on it, but it’s still a retarded legal argument to double down on somebody. Statutory doesn’t have stiff enough penalties so we’re going after you for blowjobs? It would’ve been better for him if he’d done her missionary instead.

                1. Mr. Creepy McPervy didn’t actually do anything, he simply propositioned the girl. I know, the sentence seems excessive.

                  But now we’re discussing Cuccinelli’s actual position, not the insinuations in the media that he wants to punish adult sodomy.

                  1. Also, Cuccinelli was already in Mother Jones’ cross-hairs because he challenged ObamaCare and “global warming” regulations in court, as well as opposing abortion.

                  2. Fair enough, media coverage has focused on its relationship to Lawrence v. Texas instead of how the law is being used to harass someone because prosecutors don’t feel they’ve got enough to punish him with. It is a bad, but not unexpected call on the part of the media, paint me surprised.

                    That and he’s doing something crazy to get some free publicity for a run at governor.

                    1. I expect that he’d defend the conviction even if he wasn’t running for office. Whether the conviction and sentence were OK or not, they were upheld by the Virginia courts, and the federal courts are second-guessing the state courts. Such second-guessing is allowed only in rare circumstances, which Cuccinelli argues don’t apply here. Even if he weren’t running for office, he’d be under pressure from the prosecutor and the girls’ parents to keep the guy in prison. In addition to asking the girl for sex, Mr. McPervy filed a police report saying she raped him, later admitting that was a lie. This is the sort of conviction a state AG wants to defend, election season or not.

                    2. Wow the whole scenario just gets worse with every layer.

                    3. Also, in the 2-1 federal decision, the dissenting judge (who says McPervy should stay in prison) was appointed by Obama. So Cuccinelli is supporting the legal position of an Obama judge.

                    4. I’m not really concerned with who appoints a judge. It’s usually just referenced for points scoring. Obama likes a deferential judiciary (which is not my preference), but judges disappoint their appointers all the time.

                      It sounds like an awful situation, but I don’t see that as a good justification for keeping this particular law in force on any level. If they want to fold bits of it into their statutory law that’s fine, but I don’t see why the government ought to be rating oral somehow worse than vaginal, so it seems to, as my mother would say, hew to the letter of Lawrence, but violate the spirit of Lawrence.

                    5. Sure, but I suspect that most state AGs would make legal arguments to keep Mr. McPervy in prison. The only reason it’s drawing attention in Cuccinelli’s case is (a) he’s running against a Democrat, and (b) he has a history of opposing “gay rights” bills. So he must be the *sort of person* who would criminalize sodomy between adults, which is the thrust of the Mother Jones article. They adjust the facts to fit the narrative.

                      If there is any fire behind the smoke, I notice that Cuccinelli, as a state legislator, opposed (or sent back to committee) this bill:


                      It would have exempted consensual adult sodomy in private, as Lawrence had already done, while specifying that other forms of sodomy were still crimes.

                      The bill would *also* have reduced the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor, which I suspect had more to do with Cuccinelli’s opposition than the fact that it conformed to Lawrence. Nevertheless, ThinkProgress spins this as wanting to recriminalize consensual adult sodomy (though as a lawyer he would have known that Lawrence wouldn’t allow this) –


                    6. But his quote in the article about gay acts being wrong was in the contexts of a nondiscrimination policy, not a proposal to imprison people for sodomy.

  17. Was flipping through channels on TV before I sat back with a book and saw that tart Piers Morgan and Jonathan Chait defending the President’s comments like a couple of smug, smart-alec frat brothers. Hey, don’t get me wrong, I think people should chill out whenever someone says something nice. I’ve no problem with these comments.

    Where I have a problem is how fast liberals come to the defense of their own. If Bush had said this…O.M.G. I doubt Chait or Morgan would be so understanding. They’d spin it another way.

  18. The simple fact here is that men didn’t evolve to see women with any real power.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.