Since I seem to be doing some daily briefing blogging this morning, let me say this: The press briefing is a really weird ritual. Robert Gibbs stands on a stage and takes on all comers regardless of height, weight, or topic. It's Q&A, not fisticuffs, but it's rather the same idea. One series of questions yesterday jumped, in order, from whether the auto companies would benefit from the financial bail out to when Mexico's security situation is "our problem" to whether the White House agrees that the Mexican government is losing control of territory to drug cartels to whether Obama will actually be able to jam program cuts through Congress to who wrote the introductory chapters of the budget overview. A few questions later, we were at the specifics of cap and trade and the likelihood of pass-through costs. And that was five queries out of dozens. Now, Robert Gibbs is a smart guy. But he's not Uatu the Watcher. I'm willing to bet he doesn't know that much about Mexico's security situation. And if he does, then he probably doesn't know that much about the auto bailout. And if he knows a lot about both, then how much room is really left for cap and trade? The human brain is only so large. And he's not googling from the podium.By contrast, at yesterday's OMB budget briefing, Peter Orszag, a legitimate economist, would tag in Christina Romer when the questions strayed from budget policy to macroeconomics. And despite Romer's discomfiting rhetorical tendency to deliver predictions of severe economic contraction in an upbeat chirp accompanied by a constant smile, that was the right move. She's the administration's macroeconomic expert.What I don't understand, then, is why the daily briefing doesn't operate on a tag team model. Gibbs can preside and each agency -- or some number of agencies -- can contribute a communications staffer who gets tagged in when the question edges into their area of jurisdiction. So the budget back-and-forth could heat up and Ken Baer, the OMB's associate director of communications, could come flying off the turnbuckle. Or the questions could turn to Mexico and State Department staffer could step forward to answer the question. As it is, the current briefing is an entertaining jousting match, but it's not built to be maximally informative. THE WEIRDNESS OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS BRIEFING.
Since I seem to be doing some daily briefing blogging this morning, let me say this: The press briefing is a really weird ritual. Robert Gibbs stands on a stage and takes on all comers regardless of height, weight, or topic. It's Q&A, not fisticuffs, but it's rather the same idea. One series of questions yesterday jumped, in order, from whether the auto companies would benefit from the financial bail out to when Mexico's security situation is "our problem" to whether the White House agrees that the Mexican government is losing control of territory to drug cartels to whether Obama will actually be able to jam program cuts through Congress to who wrote the introductory chapters of the budget overview. A few questions later, we were at the specifics of cap and trade and the likelihood of pass-through costs. And that was five queries out of dozens. Now, Robert Gibbs is a smart guy. But he's not Uatu the Watcher. I'm willing to bet he doesn't know that much about Mexico's security situation. And if he does, then he probably doesn't know that much about the auto bailout. And if he knows a lot about both, then how much room is really left for cap and trade? The human brain is only so large. And he's not googling from the podium.By contrast, at yesterday's OMB budget briefing, Peter Orszag, a legitimate economist, would tag in Christina Romer when the questions strayed from budget policy to macroeconomics. And despite Romer's discomfiting rhetorical tendency to deliver predictions of severe economic contraction in an upbeat chirp accompanied by a constant smile, that was the right move. She's the administration's macroeconomic expert.What I don't understand, then, is why the daily briefing doesn't operate on a tag team model. Gibbs can preside and each agency -- or some number of agencies -- can contribute a communications staffer who gets tagged in when the question edges into their area of jurisdiction. So the budget back-and-forth could heat up and Ken Baer, the OMB's associate director of communications, could come flying off the turnbuckle. Or the questions could turn to Mexico and State Department staffer could step forward to answer the question. As it is, the current briefing is an entertaining jousting match, but it's not built to be maximally informative. 
