If the President was posting that exchange here at TPM, Arthur would have given him the Dayly award for that comeback...All I could do was cheer and yell "what a burn!" Loved it!

Of course now the bozos of the press are saying 'Obama lied, he already had the facts.'

Only wish we did. Still never revealed the processes that allowed that clause to be inserted.

CNN is posturing that Ed's was the best question and that Obama was angry, yadda yadda yadda.

And I thought Rahm was great on Larry King.

The zinger came only after Obama answered the substance part of Henry's rambling question. Obama then gave Henry a way out, Henry foolishly persisted in his "gotcha" mode, and only then did Obama lower the mace.

Obama is civil and not out to hurt people. But he is no pushover. I grow more impressed with him every week. We are indeed fortunate that we don't have zingers from president McCain.

he bi!@h slapped Ed Henry! I love it!

That was priceless. Almost as good was Obama's reply to Chuck T's ridiculous question...Did he even think that through?

"Why aren't you asking for specific sacrifices?"

Umm, Chuck, I'm glad your promotion is working out well, and you're ready to "sacrifice", but the rest of us are getting our asses kicked by this economy.

"I Like to Know What I'm Talking About Before I Speak"

I'm going to try to take Obama's advice. I wish the press corps would do the same.

Ed Henry is a perpetual @$$. I'm glad President made in abundantly clear for those who were earlier uninformed.

Oh Henry? You've just been bitch slapped!

It could also be construed as a dig at the politicians and pundits who had kittens about the AIG bonuses. Funny thing was, the government allowed AIG to pay the bonuses in the agreement they signed. Seems like after everyone "knew what they were talking about" they had to back pedal in a hurry.

Great for the President to articulate this logical, rational, and (dare I say) sane approach to public speaking.

I'm as pro-Obama as anyone, but I'm dismayed by this series of comments. It seems to me that this question regarding what was known when on the AIG bonuses has been echoed for days in the press and is a fair issue. The Administration's outrage on this matter, including the President Obama's, implied that they were discovering that the bonuses took place at the same time that the public did - that everything was unfolding real-time. It now turns out that they knew sometime earlier, and in fact, there seems to have been specific wrangling in the legislation between Treasury and Senator Dodd regarding whether to allow the bonuses to be granted at all. Given that background, one would think the Administration, including the President, would have had a better, more thoughtful response when the news first broke about the bonuses, beyond, basically, "I'm outraged too". When the President was asked about this, as part of a somewhat muddled question by Ed Henry, the President chose to respond to one part of the question and ignore other parts of the question. When Ed Henry followed up on the AIG bonus piece, he was dismissed with the now famous "I like to know what I'm talking about" line. That, to me, is still an insufficient response and not an example of a thoughtful leader "smacking down" an impertinent journalist. Why shouldn't we hold the Administration accountable for, at the very least, tacitly allowing these bonuses to be granted, and for clearly disclosing the time-line associated with the discovery that the grants actually took place?

All in all, this AIG bonus issue is all symbolism. The dollars, while large, are insignificant in light of the billions the company has received and the trillions any economic solution will require. That said, as a piece of symbolism, I don't think the President's response to Ed Henry's follow up is something to admire; rather, I think it falls into the same petty, one-line-zinger, tit-for-tat nonsense that I thought only conservatives liked to cheer.