[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]
Good afternoon, everybody. Let me start
out by saying that I was sorely tempted to wear a tan suit today for my last press conference. But Michelle, whose fashion
sense is a little better than mine, tells me that's not appropriate in
January.
I covered a lot of the ground that I would want to cover in
my farewell
address last week. So I'm just going to say a couple of quick things
before I start taking questions.
First, we have been in touch with the Bush family today, after hearing
about President George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush being admitted to the
hospital this morning. They have not only dedicated their lives to this
country, they have been a constant source of friendship and support and
good counsel for Michelle and me over the years. They are as fine a
couple as we know. And so we want to send our prayers and our love to
them. Really good people.
Second thing I want to do is to thank all of you. Some of you have been
covering me for a long time -- folks like Christi and Win. Some of you
I've just gotten to know. We have traveled the world together. We’ve
hit a few singles, a few doubles together. I’ve offered advice that I
thought was pretty sound, like “don’t do stupid…stuff.” And even when
you complained about my long answers, I just want you to know that the
only reason they were long was because you asked six-part questions.
But I have enjoyed working with all of you. That does not, of course,
mean that I’ve enjoyed every story that you have filed. But that’s the
point of this relationship. You’re not supposed to be sycophants,
you're supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough
questions. You're not supposed to be complimentary, but you're supposed
to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure
that we are accountable to the people who sent us here.
And you have done that. And you’ve done it, for the most part, in ways
that I could appreciate for fairness even if I didn’t always agree with
your conclusions. And having you in this building has made this place
work better. It keeps us honest. It makes us work harder. It made us
think about how we are doing what we do and whether or not we're able to
deliver on what’s been requested by our constituents.
And for example, every time you’ve asked “why haven’t you cured Ebola
yet,” or “why is that still that hole in the Gulf,” it has given me the
ability to go back to my team and say, “will you get this solved before
the next press conference?”
I spent a lot of time in my farewell address talking about the state of
our democracy. It goes without saying that essential to that is a free
press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand
experiment in self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don't
have a well-informed citizenry. And you are the conduit through which
they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of
power.
So America needs you, and our democracy needs you. We need you to
establish a baseline of facts and evidence that we can use as a starting
point for the kind of reasoned and informed debates that ultimately lead
to progress. And so my hope is, is that you will continue with the same
tenacity that you showed us to do the hard work of getting to the bottom
of stories and getting them right, and to push those of us in power to
be the best version of ourselves. And to push this country to be the
best version of itself.
I have no doubt that you will do so. I’m looking forward to being an
active consumer of your work rather than always the subject of it. I
want to thank you all for your extraordinary service to our democracy.
And with that, I will take some questions.
And I will start with Jeff Mason -- whose term apparently is not up. I
thought we’d be going out together, brother, but you got to hang around
for a while.
Question: I'm staying put.
President Obama: Jeff Mason, Reuters.
Question: Thank you, sir. Are you concerned, Mr. President, that commuting
Chelsea Manning’s sentence will send a message that leaking classified
material will not generate a tough sentence to groups like WikiLeaks?
How do you reconcile that in light of WikiLeaks’ connection to Russia’s
hacking in last year’s election? And related to that, Julian Assange
has now offered to come to the United States. Are you seeking that?
And would he be charged or arrested if he came here?
President Obama: Well, first of all, let’s be clear, Chelsea Manning has
served a tough prison sentence. So the notion that the average person
who was thinking about disclosing vital, classified information would
think that it goes unpunished I don't think would get that impression
from the sentence that Chelsea Manning has served.
It has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was
carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the
sentence that she received was very disproportional -- disproportionate
relative to what other leakers had received, and that she had served a
significant amount of time, that it made it sense to commute -- and not
pardon -- her sentence.
And I feel very comfortable that justice has been served and that a
message has still been sent that when it comes to our national security,
that wherever possible, we need folks who may have legitimate concerns
about the actions of government or their superiors or the agencies in
which they work -- that they try to work through the established
channels and avail themselves of the whistleblower protections that had
been put in place.
I recognize that there’s some folks who think they're not enough, and I
think all of us, when we're working in big institutions, may find
ourselves at times at odds with policies that are set. But when it
comes to national security, we're often dealing with people in the field
whose lives may be put at risk, or the safety and security and the
ability of our military or our intelligence teams or embassies to
function effectively. And that has to be kept in mind.
So with respect to WikiLeaks, I don't see a contradiction. First of
all, I haven't commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of
the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not
conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the
conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
I don't pay a lot of attention to Mr. Assange's tweets, so that wasn't a
consideration in this instance. And I'd refer you to the Justice
Department for any criminal investigations, indictments, extradition
issues that may come up with him.
What I can say broadly is that, in this new cyber age, we're going to
have to make sure that we continually work to find the right balance of
accountability and openness and transparency that is the hallmark of our
democracy, but also recognize that there are adversaries and bad actors
out there who want to use that same openness in ways that hurt us --
whether that's in trying to commit financial crimes, or trying to commit
acts of terrorism, or folks who want to interfere with our elections.
And we're going to have to continually build the kind of architecture
that makes sure the best of our democracy is preserved; that our
national security and intelligence agencies have the ability to carry
out policy without advertising to our adversaries what it is that we're
doing, but do so in a way that still keeps citizens up to speed on what
their government is doing on their behalf.
But with respect to Chelsea Manning, I looked at the particulars of this
case the same way I have for the other commutations and pardons that
I've done, and I felt that in light of all the circumstances that
commuting her sentence was entirely appropriate.
Margaret Brennan.
Question: Mr. President, thank you. The President-elect has said that he
would consider lifting sanctions on Russia if they substantially reduced
their nuclear stockpile. Given your own efforts at arms control, do you
think that's an effective strategy? Knowing this office and Mr. Trump,
how would you advise his advisors to help him be effective when he deals
with Vladimir Putin? And given your actions recently on Russia, do you
think those sanctions should be viewed as leverage?
President Obama: Well, a couple of things. Number one, I think it is in
America's interest and the world's interest that we have a constructive
relationship with Russia. That's been my approach throughout my
presidency. Where our interests have overlapped, we've worked together.
At the beginning of my term, I did what I could to encourage Russia to
be a constructive member of the international community, and tried to
work with the President and the government of Russia in helping them
diversify their economy, improve their economy, use the incredible
talents of the Russian people in more constructive ways.
I think it’s fair to say that after President Putin came back into the
presidency that an escalating anti-American rhetoric and an approach to
global affairs that seemed to be premised on the idea that whatever
America is trying to do must be bad for Russia and so we want to try and
counteract whatever they do -- that return to an adversarial spirit that
I think existed during the Cold War has made the relationship more
difficult. And it was hammered home when Russia went into Crimea and
portions of Ukraine.
The reason we imposed the sanctions, recall, was not because of nuclear
weapons issues. It was because the independence and sovereignty of a
country, Ukraine, had been encroached upon, by force, by Russia. That
wasn’t our judgment; that was the judgment of the entire international
community. And Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian territory and
meddle in Ukrainian affairs and support military surrogates who have
violated basic international law and international norms.
What I’ve said to the Russians is, as soon as you’ve stop doing that the
sanctions will be removed. And I think it would probably best serve not
only American interest but also the interest of preserving international
norms if we made sure that we don’t confuse why these sanctions have
been imposed with a whole set of other issues.
On nuclear issues, in my first term we negotiated the START II treaty.
and that has substantially reduced our nuclear stockpiles, both Russia
and the United States. I was prepared to go further. I told President
Putin I was prepared to go further. They have been unwilling to
negotiate. If President-elect Trump is able to restart those talks in a
serious way, I think there remains a lot of room for our two countries
to reduce our stockpiles. And part of the reason we’ve been successful
on our nonproliferation agenda and on our nuclear security agenda is
because we were leading by example.
I hope that continues. But I think it’s important just to remember that
the reason sanctions have been put in place against Russia has to do
with their actions in Ukraine. And it is important for the United
States to stand up for the basic principle that big countries don’t go
around and invade and bully smaller countries. I’ve said before, I
expect Russia and Ukraine to have a strong relationship. They are,
historically, bound together in all sorts of cultural and social ways.
But Ukraine is an independent country.
And this is a good example of the vital role that America has to
continue to play around the world in preserving basic norms and values,
whether it’s advocating on behalf of human rights, advocating on behalf
of women’s rights, advocating on behalf of freedom of the press.
The United States has not always been perfect in this regard. There are
times where we, by necessity, are dealing with allies or friends or
partners who, themselves, are not meeting the standards that we would
like to see met when it comes to international rules and norms. But I
can tell you that in every multilateral setting -- in the United
Nations, in the G20, in the G7 -- the United States typically has been
on the right side of these issues. And it is important for us to
continue to be on the right side of these issues, because if we, the
largest, strongest country and democracy in the world, are not willing
to stand up on behalf of these values, then certainly China, Russia, and
others will not.
Kevin Corke.
Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You have been a strong supporter of the
idea of a peaceful transfer of power, demonstrated not terribly far from
the Rose Garden. And yet, even as you and I speak, there are more than
five dozen Democrats that are going to boycott the inauguration of the
incoming President. Do you support that? And what message would you
send to Democrats to better demonstrate the peaceful transfer of power?
And if I could follow, I wanted to ask you about your conversations with
the President-elect previously. And without getting into too much of
the personal side of it, I’m just curious, were you able to use that
opportunity to convince him to take a fresh look at some of the
important ideas that you will leave this office with -- maintaining some
semblance of the Affordable Care Act, some idea of keeping DREAMers here
in the country without fear of deportation. Were you able to use
personal stories to try to convince him? And how successful were you?
President Obama: Well, I won’t go into details of my conversations with
President-elect Trump. As I’ve said before, they are cordial. At times
they've been fairly lengthy and they've been substantive. I can't tell
you how convincing I’ve been. I think you'd had to ask him whether I’ve
been convincing or not.
I have offered my best advice, counsel about certain issues both foreign
and domestic. And my working assumption is, is that having won an
election opposed to a number of my initiatives and certain aspects of my
vision for where the country needs to go, it is appropriate for him to
go forward with his vision and his values. And I don't expect that
there’s going to be enormous overlap.
It may be that on certain issues, once he comes into office and he looks
at the complexities of how to, in fact, provide health care for
everybody -- something he says he wants to do -- or wants to make sure
that he is encouraging job creation and wage growth in this country,
that that may lead him to some of the same conclusions that I arrived at
once I got here.
But I don't think we’ll know until he has an actual chance to get sworn
in and sit behind that desk. And I think a lot of his views are going
to be shaped by his advisors, the people around him -- which is why it’s
important to pay attention to these confirmation hearings.
I can tell you that -- and this is something I have told him -- that
this is a job of such magnitude that you can't do it by yourself. You
are enormously reliant on a team. Your Cabinet, your senior White House
staff, all the way to fairly junior folks in their 20s and 30s, but who
are executing on significant responsibilities.
And so how you put a team together to make sure that they're getting you
the best information and they are teeing up the options from which you
will ultimately make decisions, that's probably the most useful advice,
the most constructive advice that I've been able to give him. That if
you find yourself isolated because the process breaks down, or if you're
only hearing from people who agree with you on everything, or if you
haven’t created a process that is fact-checking and probing and asking
hard questions about policies or promises that you've made, that's when
you start making mistakes. And as I indicated in some of my previous
remarks, reality has a way of biting back if you're not paying attention
to it.
With respect to the inauguration, I'm not going to comment on those
issues. All I know is I'm going to be there. So is Michelle. And I
have been checking the weather, and I'm heartened by the fact that it
won't be as cold as my first inauguration because that
was cold.
Jen Rodriguez.
Question: Right here, Mr. President. Thank you very much. You have said
that you would come back to fight for the DREAMers. You said that a
couple of weeks ago. Are you fearful for the status of those DREAMers,
the future of the young immigrants and all immigrants in this country
with the new administration? And what did you mean when you said you
would come back? Would you lobby Congress? Maybe explore the political
arena again? And if I may ask you a second question -- why did you take
action on "dry foot, wet foot" a week ago?
President Obama: Well, let me be absolutely clear. I did not mean that I
was going to be running for anything anytime soon. What I
meant is that it's important for me to take some time to process this
amazing experience that we've gone through; to make sure that my wife,
with whom I will be celebrating a 25th anniversary this year, is willing
to re-up and put up with me for a little bit longer. I want to do some
writing. I want to be quiet a little bit and not hear myself talk so
darn much. I want to spend precious time with my girls.
So those are my priorities this year. But as I said before, I'm still a
citizen. And I think it is important for Democrats or progressives who
feel that they came out on the wrong side of this election to be able to
distinguish between the normal back-and-forth, ebb and flow of policy --
are we going to raise taxes or are we going to lower taxes; are we going
to expand this program or eliminate this program; how concerned are we
about air pollution or climate change. Those are all normal parts of
the debate. And as I've said before, in a democracy, sometimes you're
going to win on those issues and sometimes you're going to lose.
I'm confident about the rightness of my positions on a lot of these
points, but we got a new President and a Congress that are going to make
their same determinations. And there will be a back-and-forth in
Congress around those issues, and you guys will report on all that.
But there's difference between that normal functioning of politics and
certain issues or certain moments where I think our core values may be
at stake. I put in that category, if I saw systematic discrimination
being ratified in some fashion. I'd put in that category, explicit or
functional obstacles to people being able to vote, to exercise their
franchise. I'd put in that category, institutional efforts to silence
dissent or the press.
And for me, at least, I would put in that category, efforts to round up
kids who have grown up here and for all practical purposes are American
kids and send them someplace else when they love this country; they are
our kids' friends and their classmates, and are now entering into
community colleges or, in some cases, serving in our military. The
notion that we would just arbitrarily, or because of politics, punish
those kids when they didn't do anything wrong themselves I think would
be something that would merit me speaking out. It doesn't mean that I
would get on the ballot anywhere.
With respect to “wet foot, dry foot,” we underwent a monumental shift in
our policy towards Cuba. My view was, after 50 years of a policy not
working, it made sense for us to try to reopen diplomatic relations, to
engage a Cuban government, to be honest with them about the strong
disagreements we have around political repression and treatment of
dissenters and freedom of press and freedom of religion, but that to
make progress for the Cuban people, our best shot was to suddenly have
the Cuban people interacting with Americans, and seeing the incredible
success of the Cuban American community, and engaging in commerce and
business and trade, and that it was through that process of opening up
these bilateral relations that you would see over time serious and
significant improvement.
Given that shift in the relationship, the policy that we had in place
was “wet foot, dry foot,” which treated Cuban emigres completely
different from folks from El Salvador, or Guatemala, or Nicaragua, or
any other part of the world, one that made a distinction between whether
you got here by land or by foot -- that was a carryover of a old way of
thinking that didn't make sense in this day and age, particularly as
we're opening up travel between the two countries.
And so we had very lengthy consultations with the Department of Homeland
Security. We had some tough negotiations with the Cuban government.
But we arrived at a policy which we think is both fair and appropriate
to the changing nature of the relationship between the two countries.
Nadia Bilbassy.
Question: Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity, and I want you and
your family best of luck in the future.
President Obama: Thank you.
Question: Mr. President, you have been criticized and even personally
attacked for the U.N. Security Council resolution that considered the
Israeli settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace. Mr. Trump
promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem. He appointed an ambassador
that doesn't believe in the two-state solution. How worried are you
about the U.S. leadership in the Arab world and beyond as an honest
broker? Will this ignite a third intifada? Will this even protect
Israel? And in retrospect, do you think that you should have held
Israel more accountable, like President Bush, Senior, did with the loan
guarantees? Thank you.
President Obama: I continue to be significantly worried about the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. And I’m worried about it both because I
think the status quo is unsustainable, that it is dangerous for Israel,
that it is bad for Palestinians, it is bad for the region, and it is bad
for America’s national security.
And I came into this office wanting to do everything I could to
encourage serious peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. And we
invested a lot of energy, a lot of time, a lot of effort, first year,
second year, all the way until last year. Ultimately, what has always
been clear is that we cannot force the parties to arrive at peace. What
we can do is facilitate, provide a platform, encourage. But we can't
force them to do it.
But in light of shifts in Israeli politics and Palestinian politics; a
rightward drift in Israeli politics; a weakening of President Abbas’s
ability to move and take risks on behalf of peace in the Palestinian
Territories; in light of all the dangers that have emerged in the region
and the understandable fears that Israelis may have about the chaos and
rise of groups like ISIL and the deterioration of Syria -- in light of
all those things, what we at least wanted to do, understanding that the
two parties wouldn’t actually arrive at a final status agreement, is to
preserve the possibility of a two-state solution. Because we do not see
an alternative to it.
And I’ve said this directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu. I’ve said it
inside of Israel. I’ve said it to Palestinians, as well. I don't see
how this issues gets resolved in a way that maintains Israel as both
Jewish and a democracy, because if you do not have two states, then in
some form or fashion you are extending an occupation, functionally you
end up having one state in which millions of people are disenfranchised
and operate as second-class occupant -- residents. You can’t even call
them citizens, necessarily.
And so the goal of the resolution was to simply say that the settlements
-- the growth of the settlements are creating a reality on the ground
that increasingly will make a two-state solution impossible. And we
believed, consistent with the position that had been taken with previous
U.S. administrations for decades now, that it was important for us to
send a signal, a wake-up call, that this moment may be passing, and
Israeli voters and Palestinians need to understand that this moment may
be passing. And hopefully that, then, creates a debate inside both
Israeli and Palestinian communities that won’t result immediately in
peace, but at least will lead to a more sober assessment of what the
alternatives are.
So the President-elect will have his own policy. The ambassador -- or
the candidate for the ambassadorship obviously has very different views
than I do. That is their prerogative. That’s part of what happens after
elections. And I think my views are clear. We’ll see how their
approach plays itself out.
I don’t want to project today what could end up happening, but obviously
it’s a volatile environment. What we’ve seen in the past is, when
sudden, unilateral moves are made that speak to some of the core issues
and sensitivities of either side, that can be explosive. And what we’ve
tried to do in the transition is just to provide the context in which
the President-elect may want to make some of these decisions.
Question: Are you worried that this [inaudible] --
President Obama: Well, that’s part of what we’ve tried to indicate to the
incoming team in our transition process, is pay attention to this,
because this is volatile stuff. People feel deeply and passionately
about this. And as I’ve said I think many times, the actions that we
take have enormous consequences and ramifications.
We’re the biggest kid on the block. And I think it is right and
appropriate for a new President to test old assumptions and reexamine
the old ways of doing things. But if you’re going to make big shifts in
policy, just make sure you’ve thought it through, and understand that
there are going to be consequences, and actions typically create
reactions, and so you want to be intentional about it. You don’t want
to do things off the cuff when it comes to an issue this volatile.
Chris Johnson.
Question: On LGBT rights --
President Obama: I'm sorry, where is Chris?
Question: I'm right here in the back.
President Obama: I'm sorry, didn’t see you.
Question: On LGBT rights, we've seen a lot of achievements over the past
eight years, including signing hate crimes protection legislation,
"don’t ask, don’t tell" repeal, marriage equality nationwide, and
ensuring transgender people feel visible and accepted. How do you think
LGBT rights will rank in terms of your accomplishments and your legacy?
And how confident are you that progress will endure or continue under
the President-elect?
President Obama: I could not be prouder of the transformation that's
taken place in our society just in the last decade. And I've said
before, I think we made some useful contributions to it, but the primary
heroes in this stage of our growth as a democracy and a society are all
the individual activists, and sons and daughters and couples who
courageously said, this is who I am and I'm proud of it.
And that opened people's minds and opened their hearts. And,
eventually, laws caught up. But I don’t think any of that would have
happened without the activism -- in some cases, loud and noisy, but in
some cases, just quiet and very personal.
And I think that what we did as an administration was to help the
society to move in a better direction, but to do so in a way that didn’t
create an enormous backlash, and was systematic and respectful of the
fact that, in some cases, these issues were controversial.
I think the way we handled, for example, "don’t ask, don’t tell" --
being methodical about it, working with the Joint Chiefs, making sure
that we showed this would not have an impact on the effectiveness of the
greatest military on Earth -- and then to have Defense Secretary Bob
Gates and Chairman Mike Mullen and a Joint Chiefs who were open to
evidence and ultimately worked with me to do the right thing -- I am
proud of that. But, again, none of that would have happened without
this incredible transformation that was happening in society out there.
You know, when I gave Ellen the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I meant
what I said. I think somebody that kind and likeable projecting into
living rooms around the country -- that changed attitudes. And that
wasn’t easy to do for her. And that's just one small example of what
was happening in countless communities all across the country.
So I’m proud that in certain places we maybe provided a good block
downfield to help the movement advance.
I don't think it is something that will be reversible because American
society has changed; the attitudes of young people, in particular, have
changed. That doesn't mean there aren’t going to be some fights that
are important -- legal issues, issues surrounding transgender persons --
there are still going to be some battles that need to take place.
But if you talk to young people of Malia, Sasha’s generation, even if
they’re Republicans, even if they're conservative, many of them would
tell you, I don't understand how you would discriminate against somebody
because of sexual orientation. That's just sort of burned into them in
pretty powerful ways.
April Ryan.
Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Long before today you’ve been considered
a rights President. Under your watch, people have said that you have
expanded the rubber band of inclusion. And with the election and the
incoming administration, people are saying that rubber band has recoiled
and maybe is even broken. And I’m taking you back to a time on Air
Force One going to Selma, Alabama, when you said your job was to close
the gaps that remain. And with that, what gaps still remain when it
comes to rights issues on the table? And also what part will you play
in fixing those gaps after -- in your new life?
And lastly, you are the first black President. Do you expect this
country to see this again?
President Obama: Well, I’ll answer the last question first. I think
we're going to see people of merit rise up from every race, faith,
corner of this country, because that's America’s strength. When we have
everybody getting a chance and everybody is on the field, we end up
being better.
I think I’ve used this analogy before. We killed it in the Olympics in
Brazil. And Michelle and I, we always have our -- the Olympic team
here. And it’s a lot of fun, first of all, just because anytime you're
meeting somebody who is the best at anything, it’s impressive. And
these mostly very young people are all just so healthy-looking, and they
just beam and exude fitness and health. And so we have a great time
talking to them.
But they are of all shapes, sizes, colors -- the genetic diversity that
is on display is remarkable. And if you look at a Simone Biles, and
then you look at a Michael Phelps, they're completely different. And
it's precisely because of those differences that we've got people here
who can excel at any sport.
And, by the way, more than half of our medals came from women. And the
reason is, is because we had the foresight several decades ago, with
something called Title 9, to make sure that women got opportunities in
sports, which is why our women compete better -- because they have more
opportunities than folks in other countries.
So I use that as a metaphor. And if, in fact, we continue to keep
opportunity open to everybody, then, yes, we're going to have a woman
President, we're going to have a Latino President, and we'll have a
Jewish President, a Hindu President. Who knows who we're going to have?
I suspect we'll have a whole bunch of mixed-up Presidents at some point
that nobody really knows what to call them. And that's
fine.
But what do I worry about? I obviously spent a lot of time on this,
April, at my farewell address on Tuesday, so I won't go through the
whole list. I worry about inequality, because I think that if we are
not investing in making sure everybody plays a role in this economy, the
economy will not grow as fast, and I think it will also lead to further
and further separation between us as Americans -- not just along racial
lines. There are a whole bunch of folks who voted for the
President-elect because they feel forgotten and disenfranchised. They
feel as if they're being looked down on. They feel as if their kids
aren't going to have the same opportunities as they did.
And you don't want to have an America in which a very small sliver of
people are doing really well and everybody else is fighting for scraps,
as I said last week. Because that's oftentimes when racial divisions
get magnified, because people think, well, the only way I'm going to get
ahead is if I make sure somebody else gets less, somebody who doesn't
look like me or doesn't worship at the same place I do. That's not a
good recipe for our democracy.
I worry about, as I said in response to a previous question, making sure
that the basic machinery of our democracy works better. We are the only
country in the advanced world that makes it harder to vote rather than
easier. And that dates back -- there's an ugly history to that that we
should not be shy about talking about.
Question: Voting rights?
President Obama: Yes, I'm talking about voting rights. The reason that
we are the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder
to vote is it traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of
slavery. And it became sort of acceptable to restrict the franchise.
And that's not who we are. That shouldn't be who we are. That's not
when America works best.
So I hope that people pay a lot of attention to making sure that
everybody has a chance to vote. Make it easier, not harder. This whole
notion of election -- of voting fraud, this is something that has
constantly been disproved. This is fake news -- the notion that there
are a whole bunch of people out there who are going out there and are
not eligible to vote and want to vote. We have the opposite problem.
We have a whole bunch of people who are eligible to vote who don't
vote. And so the idea that we'd put in place a whole bunch of barriers
to people voting doesn't make sense.
And then, as I've said before, political gerrymandering that makes your
vote matter less because politicians have decided you live in a district
where everybody votes the same way you do so that these aren't
competitive races, and we get 90 percent Democratic districts, 90
percent Republican districts -- that's bad for our democracy, too. I
worry about that.
I think it is very important for us to make sure that our criminal
justice system is fair and just. But I also think it's also very
important to make sure that it is not politicized, that it maintains an
integrity that is outside of partisan politics at every level.
I think at some point we’re going to have to spend -- and this will
require some action by the Supreme Court -- we have to reexamine just
the flood of endless money that goes into our politics, which I think is
very unhealthy.
So there are a whole bunch of things I worry about there. And as I said
in my speech on Tuesday, we got more work to do on race. It is not --
it is simply not true that things have gotten worse. They haven’t.
Things are getting better. And I have more confidence on racial issues
in the next generation than I do in our generation or the previous
generation. I think kids are smarter about it. They’re more tolerant.
They are more inclusive by instinct than we are. And hopefully my
presidency maybe helped that along a little bit.
But, you know, we -- when we feel stress, when we feel pressure, when
we’re just fed information that encourages some of our worst instincts,
we tend to fall back into some of the old racial fears and racial
divisions and racial stereotypes. And it’s very hard for us to break out
of those, and to listen, and to think about people as people, and to
imagine being in that person’s shoes.
And by the way, it’s no longer a black and white issue alone. You got
Hispanic folks, and you got Asian folks, and this is not just the same
old battles. We’ve got this stew that’s bubbling up of people from
everywhere. And we’re going to have to make sure that we, in our own
lives, in our own families and workplaces, do a better job of treating
everybody with basic respect. And understanding that not everybody
starts off in the same situation, and imagining what would it be like if
you were born in an inner city and had no job prospects anywhere within
a 20-mile radius, or how does it feel being born in some rural county
where there’s no job opportunities in a 20-mile radius -- and seeing
those two things as connected as opposed to separate.
So we got work to do. But, overall, I think on this front, the trend
lines ultimately, I think, will be good.
Christi Parsons. And Christi, you are going to get the last question.
Question: Oh, no.
President Obama: Christi is -- I’ve been knowing her since Springfield,
Illinois. When I was a state senator, she listened to what I had to
say. So the least I can do is give her the last question
as President of the United States.
Go on.
Question: 217 numbers still work.
President Obama: There you go. Go ahead.
Question: Well, thank you, Mr. President. It has been an honor.
President Obama: Thank you.
Question: And I have a personal question for you, because I know how much you
like this. The First Lady puts the stakes of the 2016 election in very
personal terms in a speech that resonated across the country, and she
really spoke the concerns of a lot of women, LGBT folks, people of
color, many others. And so I wonder now how you and the First Lady are
talking to your daughters about the meaning of this election and how you
interpret it for yourself and for them.
President Obama: You know, every parent brags on their daughters or their
sons. If your mom and dad don’t brag on you, you know you got problems.
But, man, my daughters are something, and they just
surprise and enchant and impress me more and more every single day as
they grow up. And so these days, when we talk, we talk as parent to
child, but also we learn from them.
And I think it was really interesting to see how Malia and Sasha
reacted. They were disappointed. They paid attention to what their mom
said during the campaign and believed it because it’s consistent with
what we’ve tried to teach them in our household, and what I've tried to
model as a father with their mom, and what we've asked them to expect
from future boyfriends or spouses.
But what we've also tried to teach them is resilience, and we've tried
to teach them hope, and that the only thing that is the end of the world
is the end of the world. And so you get knocked down, you get up, brush
yourself off, and you get back to work. And that tended to be their
attitude.
I think neither of them intend to pursue a future of politics -- and, in
that, too, I think their mother's influence shows. But
both of them have grown up in an environment where I think they could
not help but be patriotic, to love this country deeply, to see that it's
flawed but see that they have responsibilities to fix it. And that they
need to be active citizens, and they have to be in a position to talk to
their friends and their teachers and their future coworkers in ways that
try to shed some light as opposed to just generate a lot of sound and
fury.
And I expect that's what they're going to do. They do not -- they don't
mope. And what I really am proud of them -- what makes me proudest
about them is that they also don't get cynical about it. They have not
assumed because their side didn't win, or because some of the values
that they care about don't seem as if they were vindicated, that
automatically America has somehow rejected them or rejected their
values. I don't think they feel that way.
I think that they have, in part through osmosis, in part through
dinnertime conversations, appreciated the fact that this is a big,
complicated country, and democracy is messy and it doesn't always work
exactly the way you might want, it doesn't guarantee certain outcomes.
But if you're engaged and you're involved, then there are a lot more
good people than bad in this country, and there's a core decency to this
country, and that they got to be a part of lifting that up.
And I expect they will be. And in that sense, they are representative
of this generation that makes me really optimistic.
I've been asked -- I've had some off-the-record conversations with some
journalists where they said, okay, you seem like you're okay, but
really, really, what are you thinking? And I've said, no,
what I'm saying really is what I think. I believe in this country. I
believe in the American people. I believe that people are more good
than bad. I believe tragic things happen, I think there's evil in the
world, but I think that at the end of the day, if we work hard, and if
we're true to those things in us that feel true and feel right, that the
world gets a little better each time.
That's what this presidency has tried to be about. And I see that in
the young people I've worked with. I couldn't be prouder of them. And
so this is not just a matter of "No Drama Obama" -- this is what I
really believe. It is true that behind closed doors I curse more than I
do publicly. And sometimes I get mad and frustrated, like
everybody else does. But at my core, I think we're going to be okay.
We just have to fight for it. We have to work for it, and not take it
for granted. And I know that you will help us do that.
Thank you very much, press corps. Good luck.
Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by
McGraw-Hill (2008)
Text & Audio Source:
WhiteHouse.govAudio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement
Page Updated: 8/5/18
U.S. Copyright Status: This text and audio = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com.