Michelle Malkin » Obama wants his Blackberry back

Obama wants his Blackberry back

By Michelle Malkin • November 26, 2008 09:49 AM

Keeping in touch with the little people

Barack Obama told Barbara Walters he wants his Blackberry back. Apparently, he has been negotiating to keep it in order to stay connected to people outside his immediate White House circle:

Obama Trying to Keep His BlackBerry

Obama said he was concerned that the isolated life of a president would limit his access to information from outside the bubble of the White House.

Throughout the campaign, Obama was often seen communicating to staff members via his BlackBerry, a convenience the president-elect may legally have to forgo, and one which he indicated he was negotiating to keep.

For national security purposes, a president is limited in his electronic correspondences for fear of hacking. Additionally, presidential communications are strictly monitored and archived for historical purposes.

“One of the things that I’m going to have to work through is how to break through the isolation — the bubble that exists around the president. I’m in the process of negotiating with the Secret Service, with lawyers, with White House staff … to figure out how can I get information from outside of the 10 or 12 people who surround my office in the White House,” he said.

Like his uhhh, old friends back home in Chicago, perhaps?

“One of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day … ” he said. “I want to make sure that I keep my finger on the pulse of the struggles that people are going through every day.”

Does this mean his illegal alien Aunti Zeituni has his Blackberry addresss?

***

Afterthought: Will the same people who lambasted Sarah Palin for keeping a personal Yahoo! account and using her Blackberry attack Obama for “evading public disclosure,” too?

Posted in: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin

Regular View

comments (109)

trackbacks (8)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#558648

On November 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm, chapoutier said:

To you and yours too, Patriot.
#558700

On November 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pm, Digshot said:

Hahahha.

Is this the type of criticism we can expect to hear from Republicans over the next eight years?
#558737

On November 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm, PatriotRider said:

Digshot said:
Hahahha.

Is this the type of criticism we can expect to hear from Republicans over the next eight years?

You must not confuse Republicans for conservatives. Doing so got you 8 years of Reagan. Hopefully the Republicans will run a conservative in 2012.
#558853

On November 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am, DBNinKY said:

And you are not the least bit suspicious that she was in fact researching if such emails would be subject to subpoena?

Sorry Chap, but that’s what INSTRUMENTAL (direct action) leadership is all about – side stepping bureaucratic stupidity to take charge and get things done. And at an 80%+ approval rating among both Rep & Dem Alaskans, Gov Palin’s doing something right – whether you’ll give her credit for it or not.

My point is, when confronted with a dilemma, expressive leaders like Obama do nothing but fret, talk and wring their hands, remaining generally inactive; instrumental leaders like Gov Palin, on the other hand, act first to solve situations before pausing to ask moot questions. Thus I understand her resorting to private e-mail – the shortest distance thing – and have no problems with it.

No. It is not “best practices” it is the law.

You’re the lawyer, so I’ll defer to you on this one, but in my state it is a firing offense for state employees (regardless of tenure or position) to violate KY’s Best Practices statute on e-mail.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that Obama is seeking to make sure he is in compliance.

You began your defense of Obama by impugning Gov Palin’s intelligence, insinuating she lacked the good judgment to conduct state business, which was patently unfair!

But of course if Dick Morris says something, it must be true.

Well, he was co-president in the second Clinton term, and it was his wisdom and ability to accurately read the minds of voters – not Clinton’s – that made that second term possible!

Like when he said this:

Morris wanted HRC defeated. He was talking her up to goad the Obama-heads into action against her during the primaries; and given that HRC held on til June, I don’t think he was that wrong!
#558950

On November 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Could we cite that law please?
#559052

On November 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, Digshot said:

You must not confuse Republicans for conservatives. Doing so got you 8 years of Reagan. Hopefully the Republicans will run a conservative in 2012.

You don’t need to worry about me being confused. I’ve been saying George Bush isn’t a Republican for years, while much of the conservative movement enthusiastically supported Bush during his re-election. But George Bush was no more of a conservative in 2002 than he is today, a few months before he leaves office in disgrace. If anyone’s confused about the differences between Republicans and conservatives, it’s Republicans and conservatives.

The conservative base would have followed George Bush through time and space forever and ever if he had just continued to win for himself and the brand. This man received ridiculous amounts of praise from conservatives for any number of his very un-conservative ideas. In the Republican party, you can literally propose or support anything as long as you win the election. The party as its organized isn’t about any single or slate of issues, it’s about winning, first and foremost. Republicans are conservatives and vice versa when things are going well, but when things aren’t, the divorce is over pretty quick. The party failed, not the ideology, right?
#559203

On November 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am, DBNinKY said:

You’re the lawyer, so I’ll defer to you on this one, but in my state it is a firing offense for state employees (regardless of tenure or position) to violate KY’s Best Practices statute on e-mail.

Oops! To finish:

So there are penalties and ramifications in KY, and I presume in Alaska, for state employees who defraud the peoples’ trust by using government e-mail for personal business; however, I don’t know of any precedent for a state official using a private e-mail account to perform the perfunctory/house-keeping duties of making simple contacts and agenda announcements.

Maybe I missed it, if so, it’s news to me.
#559289

On November 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm, chapoutier said:

perfunctory/house-keeping duties of making simple contacts and agenda announcements.

Have you seen the headers to those messages? They do not fall under “perfunctory” “simple contacts” or “agenda anouncements.”

Don’t be obtuse.
#559495

On November 30th, 2008 at 2:53 am, PKAmmoTroop said:

On November 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, Digshot said:

The conservative base would have followed George Bush through time and space forever and ever if he had just continued to win for himself and the brand.

Wrong, the conservative base only followed him because he was running against a couple of complete morons. If he goes down in history as anything, it’ll be as the man who saved the USA from the brain trust of Al Gore and John Kerry.
#559551

On November 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am, DBNinKY said:

Have you seen the headers to those messages?
Don’t be obtuse.

It’s not being obtuse to give Governor Palin the benefit of a doubt. You know how misleading e-headers can be, whether spam or from a close friend, so I think it’s presumptive to judge by that standard alone. But even if the messages are as they may appear, what of it?

I see far greater abuse in a politician using state e-mail for personal matters than I do in his/her use of their private e-account for semi-official communication.
#559580

On November 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am, chapoutier said:

And you are still willing to give her he benefit of doubt even though you know she researched whether such private accounts were subject to subpoena?

Wow.

And you really see more abuse in someone using a work email account for private purposes, which while probably not a good idea, seems to have as it’s worst consequence some mispproproated bandwidth, than you do in government officials skirting foia laws and this undermining transparency and accountability?

All right. I guess this is pointless.
#559586

On November 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am, DBNinKY said:

“…government officials…undermining transparency and accountability?”

And sending personal e-mails on the tax payers’ dime – a form of public fraud – doesn’t undermine transparency and accountability?
#559587

On November 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am, chapoutier said:

I admit it is fraud, though very minor. What % of people have occasionally sent a private email on their work account? I’d wager well over 50. But I don’t see how it undermines transparancy. You have all of the email you should have and some you should not I don’t care about the latter. I care very much about the former.
#559973

On December 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am, DBNinKY said:

But I don’t see how it undermines transparancy.

It shows a level or penchant for less than open/honest behavior in the workplace on the part of a perpetrating employee. Most state government’s ask employees to sign a contract agreeing not to abuse the public’s trust by taking advantage of tax payer funded services or supplies. In short, besides fraud, it’s about trustworthiness.

I think if an employee is discovered breaking this contract on something that I agree is minor, sending or answering e-mail, then that employee may be less than transparent on other work-related issues or areas.