It was an experiment that the White House reportedly liked and could well try again. President Barack Obama held his highly-anticipated online Town Hall and the response was big and positive — and also heavily weighted with people who had lots of questions about pot.
It didn’t flop with a gong, but proved to be an intriguing idea…with a bong. No one can say the questions proved to be smoke and mirrors (well, perhaps smoke…):
When the White House put out a call for town hall questions, it might not have been expecting this.
The more than 92,000 people who responded either have Cheech and Chong senses of humor or there is a deep concern in America — undetected by the media — about the decriminalization of marijuana, its possible use for medicinal purposes and its potential as a new source of tax revenue.
Given the opportunity to say what’s really on their minds without going through the filter of the mainstream media, people “buzzed up” a series of questions that seemed to suggest broad interest in legalizing marijuana and taxing it.
In this moment of national economic crisis, the top four questions under the heading of “Financial security” concerned marijuana; on the budget, people voted up questions about marijuana to positions 1-4; marijuana was in the first and third positions under “jobs”; people boosted a plug for legalizing marijuana to No. 2 under “health care reform.” And questions about decriminalizing pot occupied spots 1 and 2 under “green jobs and energy.”
After taking questions lower on the list, Obama addressed the pot issue head on, noting the huge number of questions about marijuana legalization and remarking with a chuckle, “I don’t know what that says about the online audience.”
“The answer is no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow our economy,” he said, as the audience in the room applauded and joined him in a laugh.
So although the economy is going to pot, many questioners wanted to know about the real thing. And this forum as a potential White House info-communications tool? Some say it has potential:
Here’s Obama’s actual comment on these questions:
You can read the full text of the townhall with all of the topics discussed HERE.
In the scheme of things, although it’s hard to admit it when we’re in the middle of it, we are now smack in the middle of the Fred Flintstones age of this new technology of computers and computer communications; we are now where movies were during the silent movie era — and this relatively new technology and its impact will evolve as we move more into the 21st century, with impacts and adjustments in other communication sectors. Just look at the virtual collapse of the once strong newspaper industry (it was reported today that the Washington Post is offering buyouts to its employees and the New York Times will reduce staff. Four newspaper owners have filed for bankruptcy since December.).
A smart politico who knows how to use 21st century communications tools can fine tune this “venue” — and Obama has proven to be a smart politico. So expect him to fine tune it an try it again. Here are a bunch of other reactions to the online townhall:
I’ve been critical of the White House New Media office before, but I think they deserve kudos today for instigating and executing the President’s first online town hall meeting. (Macon Phillips, the new media director, and Jesse Lee, the online programs director, spent a long time putting this together.) One — the White House says that Obama wasn’t briefed about the questions in advance. Two — several questions weren’t softballs. Three — the White House web servers had enough bandwidth to accommodate the demand. (To test them, I pulled it up simultaneously on several computers without a program.) To the extent that the new media operation got off to a slow start — not really their fault, for a variety of legal, structural and economic reasons, this event will go a long away toward building that team some institutional credibility within the White House.
—Michelle Malkin:“If this online townhall looks like another permanent campaign registration tool to you, you’re not alone.”
The chuckle suggests a man of his generation. The dismissiveness toward the question of ending Prohibition [of pot] as both a good in itself and a form of tax revenue is, however, depressing. His answer was a non-answer. I’m tired of having the Prohibition issue treated as if it’s trivial or a joke. It is neither. It is about freedom and it’s deadly serious. As for your online audience, Mr president, have you forgotten who got you elected?
–The New Republic notes that Russian President Putin beat Obama to this format three years ago..
Today’s event just wasn’t that interesting a use of the Internet. The fact that more than three million people visited the site to vote on 104,132 questions is certainly an interesting version of participatory democracy. But that was about the best you can say about the experiment.
—Steven Taylor agrees with Andrew Sullivan that the pot issue is not one to be taken lightly:
I am struck by the unserious treatment of the issue by both the reporter and the President.
Given the cost of marijuana enforcement policies, the damage it does to civil liberties, the very real potential revenue from taxation, as well as legitimate questions about medical application, this is actually a very legitimate public policy question.
And to answer the Politico’s question, this isn’t about Cheech and Chong senses of humor, but is, if fact, about a real concern held by some in the US about this issue. Although, clearly, there was some self-selection bias going on here as well.
Obama and his media puppets pretend the tens of thousands of patriotic Americans marching against the coup on the constitution and the forced bankruptcy (and resulting enslavement of the productive American) in the form of “Tea parties” in big cities and small towns of America is not happening. The media doesn’t agree with it, so they won’t report on it, but if six anti-war protesters show up with tin foil hats on outside of Bush’s Crawford Texas ranch, the media climb over it like Dems on your paycheck.
Instead of reporting what’s really happening in America, O-mao and his marxist minions stage this burlesque show here, where â??92,889 people have submitted 104,079 questions”. His propaganda ministers sift through them, find the ones they like (no messy press to deal with), and write the puppet in chief’s answers for him.
—The American Conservative’s Eunomia:
Freddie’s frustration with Obama’s dismissive response to the large number of online questions about marijuana legalization is understandable, but it seems to me that legalization arguments will never gain much traction if advocates for it are constantly having to mention how they are not like the drug’s stereotypical users or regard the drug’s use as some grievous personal failing. Instead of coming across as a stronger argument, the standard “I’m in favor of legalization, and I’m the farthest thing in the world from a pot smoker!” argument ends up making the argument for legalization less compelling. This is because this kind of argument unintentionally reproduces the stigma against the drug and effectively endorses one of the key claims that supporters of criminalization make. While it is true that there are a great many practical and principled reasons why Americans of all stripes should oppose continued criminalization, for legalization to take hold as something more than a marginal issue that has the sympathies of more than relatively marginal political forces there would need to be a much larger constituency that regards criminalization as an intolerable imposition on one of their preferences.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.