President Obama Meets with Steve Jobs

| News

President Obama and Apple CEO Steve Jobs met on Thursday in San Francisco, according to Bloomberg. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that, “it was a meeting the president was interested in having,” and that President Obama was, “eager to talk to [Mr. Jobs] about the economy, innovation and technology, education.”

Mr. Gibbs also said, “They discussed American competitiveness and education, especially reforms such as the president’s Race to the Top initiative. They then talked about energy independence and ways to increase job creation.”

President Obama was visiting Silicon Valley to attend a $30,000 a plate fund raiser for the Democratic Party that was held at the home of newly minted Google executive Marissa Mayer later on Thursday. The San Francisco Chronicle reported the event was being attended by 50 wealthy democrats (Mr. Jobs was not reported to be among them).

Mr. Jobs has, however, donated to the Democratic Party in the past, having donated $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and $26,700 to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006. Bloomberg also noted that Mr. Jobs donated $1,000 to former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel when Emanuel was running for the U.S. House in 2004.

Steve Jobs & Barak Obama

Apple CEO Steve Jobs and U.S. President Barak Obama

Popular TMO Stories


Lee Dronick

A new Cabinet post, The Secretary of Technology and Innovation


Yeah, you know what, we don’t need a new Czar, we just need what Apple has proven works, Free Enterprise.

Hopefully Obama pays a good look at Apple and makes some changes.


“Mr. Jobs donated $1,000 to former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel when Emanuel was running for the U.S. House in 2004”

That truly disappoints me.

other side

That truly disappoints me.

At least it was a personal donation.  Steve can give it to anyone he wants.

It’s when Apple itself hands out money (as with Prop. 8) that we have a problem.

Lee Dronick

It?s when Apple itself hands out money (as with Prop. 8) that we have a problem.

That wasn’t a problem, trying to defeat Prop 8 was the right thing to do.

other side

That wasn?t a problem, trying to defeat Prop 8 was the right thing to do.

The problem was Apple getting politically involved at the corporate level.

What’s “right” or “wrong” isn’t something a corporation should take sides on.

Lee Dronick

The problem was Apple getting politically involved at the corporate level.

What?s ?right? or ?wrong? isn?t something a corporation should take sides on.

What they support or not is their choice.


I think Prop 8 was the wrong move.

All it does is reinforce that government can decide who you can marry or not. Well sorry, but it’s not of the government’s business who I choose to marry, a vestigial organ of the racist policies from our distant past design to prevent interracial marriage.

I am not opposed to gays getting married, but I am opposed to gays trying to legalize gay marriage, because all it does is increase the State’s power over all of us.

In my experience, gays do not care for marriage, as much as they care about equal rights under the law. So the REAL solution is to get government out of the marriage bed altogether.

When I get married, I will be doing so without a marriage license as a firm protest against government having any say in who can or can not marry. I am sure that will cause me many complications, and so be it. There are more and more doing it, and hopefully we can move on from the issue of gay marriage being legal or not, to the issue of government having any say in marriage, period.

Dean Lewis

Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and can basically run for office now. Only a matter of time until we get to vote for Apple or Microsoft as President. Oh, sure, there will be some third-party candidates like Google and RIM, but, third parties never can muster enough votes…


Dean, did you know that YOU are a CORPORATION? And that your birth certificate number is also the number to a stock certificate.


other side

What they support or not is their choice.

And the companies I buy from is MY choice.

Getting involved with deeply divisive issues is bad for business; you alienate customers and get yourself branded.  I don’t see either being in the shareholders’ interest (Apple’s first customers).


I wish Obama would spend his time as President campaigning for American citizens, rather than the Democrat party.


“... So the REAL solution is to get government out of the marriage bed altogether.”

Marriage is a legal device which organizes & guides the inheritance of estates, and the distribution of social resources & privileges to entitled family members, among other things.  Obviously, only government (i.e.-law) could provide such a device. (In societies where religious law provides those services, that religion is only doing so as an official arm of government.)

People who need those good things who don’t have the instrument of marriage to channel those distributions, may be denied them in the end because of that deficiency (e.g., trying to provide inheritance outside of the intrinsic rights of legally recognized family members could well prove too difficult).  It’s easy for me to see how that might be tragic, and at least unfair. 

In the cost-benefit balancing of whether there should be laws establishing marriage as a legal institution, I can’t see how we could afford to do without it, as long as we’re going to have families which will inevitably need various legal protections (which under our constitution, must be provided equally to all citizens).


Obviously, only government (i.e.-law) could provide such a device.

Um, excuse me?

Law and government are two VERY different things. So, no, government ? law. Is that what your public education has taught you? Law may be decided and passed by the Legislative branch, but there a wide berth between the Legislative and the Judicial, on purpose. If the government was dissolved tomorrow, our laws remain. Law is not dependent on government. Indeed, government is restrained by law.

When I sit down with my friend and agree to start a business, and we sign a contract, the government is not involved in any way shape nor form. We have the full protections of the law. We can sue, which is what a divorce is, a suit.

So your entire premise is mistaken and false.

There is no need for government intervention in marriage. That’s is a fact. Marriage has lasted millennia longer than government intervention in marriage. When I sit with my girl and we decide to marry, we are entering into a contract that requires no government intervention. If we decide to dissolve our contract, we go to the courts, not the government.

Now in America, sadly the line between the courts, Judicial, and the government, Legislative/Executive, has blurred. That would be the reason you’re confused about this.

All I can say though is that you’re poorly-versed statist, and your arguments do not stand up to the most fleeting scrutiny.

Freedom and liberty for all. Geeks included.


All this argumentation over a $1,000 donation from one of the richest persons on earth? Really?



As I understand government (at least here in the US) our national & state governments have 3 branches: the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.

So consequently, as I understand government, yes, “Law and government are two VERY different things”; Law is a group of rules, and government is a (complex) social institution.  And yes, “... government is restrained by law…” 

But as to whether “Law is not dependent on government…”, obviously Law is quite dependent on government’s legislative branch to create and amend it, Law is dependent on government’s judicial branch to define its appropriate execution & manifestation in society, and Law is dependent on government’s executive branch to ensure the actual manifestation of those rules in the functions of society.  If the three branches of government were dissolved tomorrow, there would be no law.

Without a functioning government of some sort, any contract you might have made with your marital or business partner would be enforcible only on the basis of superior might or other personal advantage.


Well, nice opinions, but the history of humanity through dozens of disparate cultures contradicts your thesis.

As they say, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

You simply have an incredibly statist view of the world, and I wish there were not many people like you, but sadly you’re in the majority, in our country, at least. But people are slowly coming around. The truth always wins in the end.

Once again, marriage does need government intervention, and law ? government. These are simply truths that have been proven true over 7 or 8 millennia. You can argue for the statist position, and most will likely agree with you, pat you on the back and say that you’re right. But that will never make you right.

Andrew Hankinson


I’m not sure what Ayn Randian fiction you’ve been smoking, but in the real world, the law and the government are inseparable, both in creation and enforcing.

When you enter into a contract with a business partner, you sign a contract. The laws governing how that contract is executed are completely decided by the government. A breach of contract is determined by the courts, based on their interpretation of business law which, you guessed it, just so happens to be written by the government. In a democracy, this law is determined through debate and mediation; in a dictatorship or a monarchy, it is resolved on a single person’s whim. Either way, it is the government that decides the rules in which a society functions.

Marriage is a social contract as much as it is an expression of love. It guarantees certain legal privileges that have, again, been determined by laws set down by government. You don’t think the courts make the laws, do you? They’re responsible for interpreting them, but the actual construction of law is firmly in the mandate of the government.


Stupid statism is alive and well. And you put down Ayn Rand?? Talk about showing your hand.


I?m not sure what Ayn Randian fiction you?ve been smoking, but in the real world, the law and the government are inseparable, both in creation and enforcing.

Every conservative who believes in limited government and free economy has cited Ayn Rand as a source of political philosophy since at least the 50’s.

There is nothing fictional about our country generally going through boom times through the better part of a century, and typically when there is a conservative running the show.

Lee Dronick

We should probably take the political discussion over to the TMO Lounge and leave the Apple product and service news stories to just that.

Vote for Quimby!


Big technology initiatives have, in the past, often been drivers of economic recovery.  I would love to see some big tech boom come along to pull us up a bit.

On a lighter note:

I wonder if Obama will keep his Blackberry hidden during the meeting?

Lee Dronick

I wonder if Obama will keep his Blackberry hidden during the meeting?

Maybe Steve gave him an iPhone. He sent down iPods to the Chilean miners when they were trapped in that mine.

Your right about technology driving economic recovery. If we do it right we can turn things around. Sorry to get back to politics, but I was at a community coffee this morning with Nathan Fletcher, my State Assemblyman. A concern here in San Diego is reliable electricity, we haul most of it in from great distances, so I asked him about that. We discussed the solar panels that are going up in may places, the community college in my neighborhood is putting them up on the roofs and over the acres of parking lots. Alternative energy is getting to be a big thing here in California and we want to export the windmills, the solar panels, the ocean wave driven generators, and so on. He is also a proponent of smaller, regional power plants so if the big grid goes down we don’t. I am a staunch Progressive and although Assemblyman Fletcher is a Republican I highly respect him and vote for him; He is also a Mac and iPhone user, he too has met with Steve Jobs.

I was only half joking about Steve Jobs becoming Secretary of Technology and Innovation. It would take someone with Steve’s vision.


The solution to “increase job creation” is that all US citizens should work for Apple.  Anyone not under Steve is the enemy.  Exploitation of Apple partners is encouraged for “a few dollars more”.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account