Obama and Hannity – beer-drinking buddies?

February 9, 2009

ELKHART, Ind. – President Barack Obama and conservative commentator Sean Hannity are hardly political allies, but Obama on Monday briefly entertained the thought they could at least share a beer.

 At least, Obama seemed to like the beer part.

OBAMA/STIMULUSHannity, a talk show host who is one of Obama’s harshest critics, offered recently to buy the president a beer after Obama said “hardcore” Hannity fans would not want to share a brew with him.

 At a town hall meeting in Indiana where Obama was selling his stimulus package, a woman who identified herself as Tara questioned why some of Obama’s cabinet appointments could not handle their own taxes.

 “I’m one of those that thinks you need to have a beer with Sean Hannity,” she said, drawing boos from the pro-Obama crowd.

 But Obama called it “a perfectly legitimate question” and took responsibility again for mistakes in the nominating process for some of his Cabinet members.

“With respect to Sean Hannity, I didn’t know that he had invited me for a beer,” he said.

“I will take that under advisement,” Obama said to laughter in the crowd. “Generally, his opinion of me does not seem to be very high — but I’m always good for a beer.”

Asked later about Obama’s remarks, and his favorite beer, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told Fox News Budweiser would be a good choice.

For more Reuters political news, click here

Photo Credit: Reuters/Jim Young (Obama appears at Indiana town hall meeting in Indiana.)


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Barack Obama he is a great mayor , of the United State

We need a president , but United it is the country of innovation , The first country has a mayor.

George Silva

Posted by george silva | Report as abusive

I wouldn’t cross the street to shake his hand let alone sit down and have a beer with him

Posted by Ron Wagstaff | Report as abusive

I agree Ron, I wouldn’t go out of my way to shake Hannitys hand either.

Posted by Eric H | Report as abusive

I agree with you Ron, I wouldn’t go out of my way to shake Obama’s hand either or sit down and have a beer with him.

At least Hannity is one of the few media voices from the opposition. You won’t get this from the network news. It is important to present all sides so people know what Obama and the democrats are really trying to force on us.

Just getting reports from one side of the spectrum isn’t good for anyone. You know that.

Posted by TC | Report as abusive

Sean Hannity, much like Rush Limbaugh, is a corporate shill who is being PAID (very well, I may add) to provide opposition for the sole purpose of ratings. An example of this from the other end of the spectrum would be Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews.

The difference with the Fox News shills & Limbaugh is that they are particularly adept at preying upon people’s fears, predjudices & paranoias.

They make for good entertainment, but to actually view them as some sort of journalists or representatives is laughable at best. They serve no greater good than their own wallets.

Posted by sf | Report as abusive

Sure thing sf. No one ever says anything about the CNN shills or the network shills, who are being paid (very well, I may add) to provide aid and comfort to Obama and the democrats.

You can say what you want about the opposition, but truth be told, they are telling the truth.

If anyone really listened to the liberal rantings, then they would not keep going out of business because no one cared for or even tuned in to listen what they had to say (Air America, etc.).

Your response is typical of the left. Rather than provide a rational argument, you all go into personal attack mode because that’s all you have. If there was any merit to what you had to say, then you wouldn’t resort to personal attack mode.

I predict Obama will be a one term president and congress is currently enjoying its highest number of democrats it will see. From here it is all downhill for them. They have nothing good to offer and it is becoming readily apparent.

Posted by TC | Report as abusive

the stock market down 400 points,on 10th febuary in response to detains of obama,s other spending bill.it is ominous that obama,s election has not influenced the markets.it was hoped that his popularity would on it,s own, cause a jump in stocks.it is clear inspite of the swooning he is still an unknown quantity.and people are not convinced the he will be an automatic success.even though people in the choir like eric,think it is impossible to even imagine that he will fail,but retoric alone will not do it.if it becomes clear that he is just a talking head ,then the deck of cards will tumble fall.unfortunately reed and pelose,are more unpopular than bush,so in they try to stand beside him that will make matters.anyway we shall see shortly as he at present is trying to bribe people who have been told that they are getting a free hand out.

Posted by brian lee | Report as abusive

The Senate’s passage Tuesday of the economic recovery package followed a familiar 30 year pattern. The Democratic President Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him in 1993, faced a monolithic wall of GOP opposition to his economic program. But Republicans Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush 20 years later enjoyed substantial Democratic support for their dangerously irresponsible and regressive tax cuts that as predicted drained the federal treasury. Now as then, for Republicans the road to economic stimulus is a one-way street.

After being blanked in the House, President Obama picked up a whopping three Republican votes in the Senate one day after his first presidential press conference. But while his foolish quest to reach across the aisle may have come up empty for now, Obama can take some comfort from Bill Clinton’s experience in 1993. Clinton’s package of stimulus programs and upper-income bracket tax increases not only created record economic expansion, it got zero Republican votes in either house of Congress.
Republicans may be the opposition party, which is good for the democratic process. But the problem with this opposition party is, they are in opposition to everything.

Posted by getplaning | Report as abusive

Everything you just said getplaning, is a matter of opinion just again.

The republicans did not create the problems we have now, regardless of how you say it.

The low tax rates are what gave us the largest economic expansion in history. Clinton, as most democratic presidents, benefited from the policies of the republican presidents before him. He did nothing, Reagan and to a degree Bush 41 economic policies really came to life during the early Clinton years. Thank God for Reagan for giving that gift to Clinton and to the nation.

As for you “claim” that republicans are obstructionists. As I have said before, I say tomato and you say tomado.
The republicans are doing they were were elected to do, stop a very bad spending plan from passing.

In the end, you will see what spending does to help the economy…hyperinflation. We need to produce our way out of the recession, depression, whatever not spend our way out with money we don’t even have. I really fault Bush with starting this in October 2008, but now it’s Obama’s baby and he will be the “full” blame for driving this train wreck. He could do the right thing, but he is ramrodding this through with some really bad stuff and we are the ones who will suffer.

Posted by TC | Report as abusive

But…the Republican Party, specifically President George W. Bush (then President of the United States as well as the head of the RNC), supported and suggested the initial stimulus package. Furthermore, I think that your characterization of how the economy works is at best simplified. After all, you have just contradicted yourself by claiming that the previous administration would be responsible for the the success or failure of the present administration: “The republicans did not create the problems we have now, regardless of how you say it.” Eight years ago, there was a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Prior to that there was still a Republican Congress. In addition, production requires investment. Spending is investment. However, I do appreciate your attention to detail regarding President Bush in your last paragraph TC.

If the success of the United States economy lies primarily in innovation (the American spirit, the cleverness of our citizens), as has been claimed by so-called Republicans (who are no longer as often fiscal conservatives or even social conservatives, but evangelicals — not an attack but an interpretation of the more recent demographics of the RNC) then the Republican Congress and President Bush significantly hindered the further growth of the economy by severely underfunding public and private scientific research; research that leads to technological innovation.

President Obama may fail, but at the current juncture Republicans sound foolish in their criticisms. It is their right, and it is simply right to question policy. However, during the next Republican administration, I would appreciate it if Republicans remember that it is not ‘un-American’ to question the local, state, or federal authorities and legislators. It is American to voice your oppinion and have others respect your constitutionally protected right to do so.

Posted by MS | Report as abusive

MS. Actually, I was giving very charitable to you and other progressive liberals by giving an somewhat equal characterization (although incomplete) picture of some of the problems we have today.

If you really want the truth, it isn’t Bush’s fault we are where we are at today. It goes back several decades (Ron Paul actually has this right) of democrat and republican policies.

My only point about Bush was that he fell for the trap which Obama took as a gift, since he would have done it anyway, of spending our way out of this mess. It would be better to do nothing and just let the free market work its way out of this current “crisis”. But it was not the last 8 years that caused this to happen. All those years leading up to this mess by greedy businesses and politicians (democrat and republican alike) that led to this. To think otherwise, it just being partisan (it is so easy to blame Bush for the beginning of time).

What Obama is doing is a true abomination which only leave us to suffer when hyperinflation hits with all the money being spent. We are spending money we, as a nation, dont’ even have. Obama could do the right thing, but he chooses to make the matter worse.

So go ahead and cherry pick certain comments which ignoring the real message. I am sure you find comfort in anything that appears to condemn Bush for everything, while at the same time you ignore Obama and his sins.

Posted by TC | Report as abusive

the plan is tc when bush is out of range the fault will be rush and hannity for spreading false information,that is why the proposer of the fairness document could not get a democratic seconder, they know they are going to be desperate for some one to blame down the road.i can not even get a response on this even from a neophyte like eric but that can be expected.

Posted by brian lee | Report as abusive

[…] Dayton’s analysis, Obama probably does watch Fox News all day. When asked a question at a town meeting in Indiana about his cabinet appointments not paying their own taxes, Obama told the woman: I’m one of […]

Posted by Barack Obama, A Sick Man « we are judeo-christian, period! | Report as abusive