3 ms·

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23berry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23berry.html For a High-Tech President, a Hard-Fough

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23berry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23berry.html For a High-Tech President, a Hard-Fought E-Victory For more than two months, Mr. Obama has been waging a vigorous battle with his handlers to keep his BlackBerry, which like millions of other Americans he has relied upon for years to stay connected with friends and advisers. (And, of course, to get Chicago White Sox scores.) He won the fight, aides disclosed Thursday, but the privilege of becoming the nation’s first e-mailing president comes with a specific set of rules. “The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends,” said Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, “in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate.” [...] The presidency, for all the power afforded by the office, has been deprived of the tools of modern communication. George W. Bush famously sent a farewell e-mail address to his friends when he took office eight years ago. While lawyers and the Secret Service balked at Mr. Obama’s initial requests to allow him to keep his BlackBerry, they acquiesced as long as the president - and those corresponding with him - agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.

philipallstar 2y ago
It's fascinating to see the difference in coverage.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the difference in coverage Because there was a difference in conduct. Obama consulted "lawyers and the Secret Service," "agreed to strict rules" and "use[d] a specially made device...approved by national security officials." Hegseth yelled YOLO before effectively tweeting target co-ordinates for our warbirds.
  - darkerside 2y ago
    It's fascinating to see the victim mentality on behalf of those who really don't need it
  - yubblegum 2y ago
    > "lawyers and the Secret Service," Yeah, but that bit about "handlers" of the President of the United States could also be a data point here. That term is usually used in conjunction with 'asset'.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      That term is widely used in multiple contexts.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      The President is supposed to be "an asset". An asset of the USA. They are subservient to an institution, despite being granted certain powers and authority. Nixon once said "If the President does it, it's not illegal", despite that being just nowhere to be found in the Constitution in any form, yet that statement caused a bunch of right wing think tanks and policy institutions and voters to agree so wholeheartedly that they spent 70 years ensuring it would become reality. Significant portions of the Republican party have been trying to make the US a monarchy again for decades.
verisimi 2y ago
There was also all that nonsense about Hillary's laptop and emails. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clinton-emails-laptop-thumb-drive-archive-missing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clin...

philipallstar 2y ago

It's fascinating to see the difference in coverage.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the difference in coverage Because there was a difference in conduct. Obama consulted "lawyers and the Secret Service," "agreed to strict rules" and "use[d] a specially made device...approved by national security officials." Hegseth yelled YOLO before effectively tweeting target co-ordinates for our warbirds.
- darkerside 2y ago
  It's fascinating to see the victim mentality on behalf of those who really don't need it
- yubblegum 2y ago
  > "lawyers and the Secret Service," Yeah, but that bit about "handlers" of the President of the United States could also be a data point here. That term is usually used in conjunction with 'asset'.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    That term is widely used in multiple contexts.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    The President is supposed to be "an asset". An asset of the USA. They are subservient to an institution, despite being granted certain powers and authority. Nixon once said "If the President does it, it's not illegal", despite that being just nowhere to be found in the Constitution in any form, yet that statement caused a bunch of right wing think tanks and policy institutions and voters to agree so wholeheartedly that they spent 70 years ensuring it would become reality. Significant portions of the Republican party have been trying to make the US a monarchy again for decades.

verisimi 2y ago

There was also all that nonsense about Hillary's laptop and emails. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clinton-emails-laptop-thumb-drive-archive-missing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clin...