Several of you have mentioned Drew Westen’s “What Happened to Obama?” in the comments. I thought Westen made some good points, but in some places he overstated his case and his arguments were weakly supported. I don’t have to write a lengthy analysis, however, because others have done it for me:
- Andrew Sprung, “A Lover of Fairy Tales Casts Obama as Villain-in-Chief“
- Jonathan Chait, “Drew Westen’s Nonsense“
- Steve Benen, “The Westen Piece“
- Ezra Klein, “Presidencies Aren’t About Speeches“
I’m siding with the critics on this one, but y’all discuss among yourselves.
Elsewhere — Someone on the right must have started a rumor that George “The Bogyman” Soros made $1 billion on the S&P downgrade. The Daily Mail picked this up as actual news, although (as you see if you read the entire story) there is no evidence whatsoever that Soros made so much as a penny on the downgrade.
The theory is that Soros had “inside information” because of his much-overstated ties to the Obama Administration. But there is no evidence the Obama Administration had “inside information” either and knew about the downgrade until a few hours before S&P publicly announced it. The alleged investment was made last month, the Daily Mail says. Of course, several rightie bloggers embraced the rumor as a cold, hard fact and have already indicted Soros; see Tbogg for a rundown.
Susan Page of the alleged newspaper USA Today — which for some time has consisted mostly of re-writes of GOP and rightie think tank press releases — notes with wonder that the President’s approval rating remains at or above 50 percent in 16 states and DC. Note the blurb picked up from the article as auto-generated at Memorandum:
Not subtle. The article itself speculates that 2012 will be another “wave” election that causes a substantial change in the political lineup in Washington, but in which direction the wave will hit it will not speculate. See also the Booman:
The Republicans are succeeding in weakening the president, but they’re making themselves even weaker in the process. I can’t say for sure that this past weekend was a pivotal moment, but I think we may look back on it as the point in time when something snapped. It’s like the Republicans kept pushing on a door, and pushing and pushing some more, with the idea that they were getting rewarded for bad behavior. But all the time the tension was rising and the resistance was building, until the door snapped back in their faces and sent them sprawling.
The presidency has a reputation for being stronger than it is in reality, and the Republicans rejoice in making Obama look impotent in any way that they can. They hold his appointments. They filibuster everything. They refuse to compromise on almost anything. This infuriates liberals and progressives who have big hopes and dreams and can’t understand why they’re not coming true. We all begin infighting and blaming each other. The public gets disgusted with the whole spectacle and starts to believe government is worthless. And the GOP benefits coming and going.
This is why I keep saying that progressives need to stop whining about Obama. Forget Obama; the job right now is to change public opinion and give people a clue what’s going on. Otherwise, in a couple of years we’re going to find even more whackjob teabaggers in Congress.
And I think the results in Wisconsin today could have an impact on the momentum of the 2012 campaigns. Go Wisconsin!
Update: Here’s one more answer to Drew Westen — John Sides, “Mischaracterizing FDR to Indict Obama.”
“The theory is that Soros had “inside information†because of his much-overstated ties to the Obama Administration”
Anyone with half a brain (dimwitted teabaggers excluded) could see this coming? I took my (401k) out of the markets weeks ago. I mean the repugs were holding America’s credit rating hostage for cripes sake! Who couldn’t see this coming is the question?
You excluded teabaggers, so I don’t have an answer. BTW, the new “theory” coming from the baggers is that the S&P downgrade happened BECAUSE the debt ceiling was raised, showing that the U.S. lacks resolve to deal with its deficits. I’m serious. You cannot underestimate these people.
I love how the right, who have the Koch Brothers, the Coors, the Mellons, the Scaife families, among others, has to create a comparable bogeman for the left – George Soros. BOOGA-BOOGA!!!
We on the left wish we had comparable wealthy people and families funding our causes, and creating astroturf groups for us, paying for Moonbat Welfare think tanks and foundations, TV and radio stations, newspapers, etc.
But sadly, we don’t…
_________________________________________________________
Uhm, Ms. Page of USA Today, maybe it would have sounded just a tad less racist if you had written, ‘The lighter the shade of pale of the state, the lower his approval rating is.”
N-word coming 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…
Actually, the question really is “Who?” rather than “When?”
I’ll even give them credit where credit is due – they’ve held off saying the N-word for years now. And that’s why someone’s gonna slip sometime soon.
Never, ever, underdestimate the stupid.
That’s like continuing to read the book after the serial killer’s been killed with 60 pages to go and wondering, huh, I wonder what the authors going to talk about now that he’s killed off the serial kil…
OMG!
HE’S NOT DEAD!
HE CAME BACK AND ATE THE DOG AND THE HUSBAND!!!
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!
Like serial killers, if you underestimate stupid people, they will always come back and bite you in the ass.
They just won’t try to digest you like the killer.
Well, I’m confused. I have to figure out if I am an Obamabot or not. There definitely has been doubt sown in whether my assessment of Obama is starry eyed or grounded in wisdom and understanding. As it stands, he’s still my best hope…and I’m sticking with him…
Now on a biblical note..Satan is referred to as the accuser of the brethren.Meaning that it is always easy to find fault and flaws in other people and that we have a tendency to accept the negative about a person on the face of an accusation. Not that we shouldn’t have our eyes open to accurately evaluate, but we should be aware of that scriptural dynamic..Westen’s charge that Obama freely capitulated on the extension of the Bush tax cuts was not accurate or true…So I have to suspect that his underlying motive was solely an attempt to tear down Obama without regard for the truth. Westen’s article was powerful and did sow the doubt it was intended to sow…
This is why I keep saying that progressives need to stop whining about Obama. Forget Obama; the job right now is to change public opinion and give people a clue what’s going on.
Exactly. And to elect more Democrats to Congress. Sure, you keep pressuring Obama to do what you want him to do, but he isn’t the problem, and he certainly isn’t the enemy.
The thing that keeps striking me is that the large majority of the complaints about Obama from the left ultimately come down to the way he’s responded to Republican obstructionism and extortion–he’s not tough enough, he’s naive to think he can compromise with these people, etc. etc. Take away the Republicans, and what’s left to complain about? Too much Mr. Spock and not enough Captain Kirk? (Except for the people who think Obama basically is a Republican, of course, but I find it difficult to take them seriously.)
I’ve said it before, Obama is too nice, too gentlemanly (shall I say) to be president in this political climate. I always think back to LBJ – he who used to give interviews sitting on the can – and had something that would kill a legislator’s political life if revealed and LBJ let it be known that he’d do just that if thwarted.
And I agree, maha, that liberals really have to stop bashing Obama – especially given what is waiting in the wings to replace him. (I remember the Truman presidency, how people mocked him, tried to discredit him, called him a know-nothing (FDR was a hard act to follow, for sure) and now historians are calling him one of our great presidents?)
As it stands, he’s still my best hope…and I’m sticking with him…
I don’t think that’s starry eyed at all. It’s a question of looking at what your actual choices are. The list of people who might might be elected President of the United States next year is quite short, and Obama is the only one who wouldn’t be an even bigger disaster than George W. Bush.
What I actually think is way more starry eyed is this idea that someone should challenge Obama in the primaries, especially since I have yet to see anyone name a plausible challenger. You want to move Obama to the left, give him a more liberal Congress to work with, or at least a non-insane one. He’ll move.
“You excluded teabaggers”
Well I don’t like to hold them to the same standards as those of us with at least partially functioning brains. I think history will report that many of them had been genetically pre-disposed to group think, brainwashing, religious indoctrination, etc. I’d wager if you compared the teabagger mind function with those of say the Taliban they would be indistinguishable from each other!
twtfltrd – Have you heard of the REINS act? If passed, it would effectively make possible the end of regulations that make cars safe to drive, food safe to eat, drugs safe to ingest. Apparently, the GOP members (and I include the teabaggers) are unaware that they are human beings just like the rest of us? They. unlike the rest of us, are impervious to the negative consequences of driving an unsafe car, ingesting unsafe drubs, eating unsafe food?
I really don’t think they have functioning brains – brainwashed in spades.
Interesting poll results from CNN:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug9.pdf
The Republican “win” in the debt ceiling debate may be a Pyrrhic Victory – one hopes and prays.
I haven’t had the time to read the counter-arguments to Westen, except for skimming Steve Benen. I would rebut Benen by saying that stories really are important, especially the story that’s promoted from the bully pulpit of the Presidency. I’ve stated over and over, in many places, that years ago the right figured out that you control a country by controlling the stories that are told about it. We’ve been living for the last three decades under Reagan’s story, entitled “Government Is Baaaaad”. As soon as that story loses its hold on the public mind, everything will change in this country, and not before. Benen is wrong in this case. Obama (or any President) is uniquely positioned to catalyze this change, if s/he desires.
I’m completely appalled by Obama’s unwillingness to place blame for what’s happened to this country. It’s as though Shit Happens, but Nobody is To Blame. Until we have an honest appraisal and acceptance of what happened, this country will continue to decline, because the leadership at the top refuses to come clean about what’s going on, and moreover makes accomodations for those who damaged this country. Until this happens, expect further debacles and disasters ahead. All of this was completely within his power to do so, if he had the guts for it. It may have meant the sacrifice of his presidency, but at some point someone has to stand up for the truth. FDR may have had it easier, given his entry three years into the Depression and given his class background, but simply accomodating the status quo is disaster. Had Obama used his eloquence to state the truth about things, no matter how much this offended others, he would discover a wellspring of respect for him, that doesn’t exist now.
On a personal level it is really important for me to understand the moving parts of a system I’m living in, and not hold delusions about them. When I clearly understand something it helps me to navigate and act intelligently. This includes the part named “Barack Obama” and the particular psychology he brings to the office. Westen managed to articulate what I’ve been thinking for a long time.
It’s just really important to understand where we are, how we got here, and not hold delusions about it. This is the value of Westen’s article for me.
It’s really important to know whether the people in power are on your side or not, are they going to screw you or what. Obama apparently only cares about making a deal, and doesn’t seem to have any sort of principles he isn’t willing to sacrifice – all in the name for some sort of mythic unity. Is there anything more dangerous than this belief in unity at the present time? The man is utterly clueless about the bullies he’s dealing with – is there anything more dangerous than that? I’ve concluded Obama is dangerous, because of his putting so-called “unity” above everything else – he’s already sold out Democratic principles on many levels. With a so-called Democrat like this, who needs Republicans?
Is Obama as dangerous as a Republican? Probably not, but the answer to that question isn’t as clear cut as it should be in my mind. And I’ll probably vote for the guy again in 2012, resenting that it’s only a lesser of two evils kind of choice. I’ll vote for him again, knowing that with him at the helm, the country will head into the ditch at 80 mph instead of 120. Some choice.
You say that we should forget about Obama and work on changing public opinion. Good luck with that. My influence on that is miniscule compared to the man at the top. We face an enormous headwind because of the GOP, their Mighty Wurlitzer, and because of Obama’s de facto complicity with their agenda.
Once I internalize a truth, I generally shut up about it, adjust my sails, and keep moving forward. There is no point in whining about something endlessly. Westen’s article helped me internalize the truth about Obama, and I don’t need to harp on it. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I am seriously interested in leaving America, and while this isn’t presently practical, this “new” understanding of Obama further fuels this desire and all my actions toward that goal.
I’m saying that changing public opinion is the most effective way to change the man “at the top.”
Once again, I’m not saying Obama has been perfect. He’s fallen short of what I had hoped. But I also think that much of the criticism leveled at him from the Left is irrational; it doesn’t consider the limitations of presidential power and the unprecedented lunacy he has to deal with in Congress. Progressivism would be far better served by working to elect a more progressive Congress in 2012 than by sitting around complaining about Obama. Making Obama weaker and talking ourselves into accepting defeat is not useful.
See also John Sides, “Mischaracterizing FDR to Indict Obama.” Part of the Left’s problem is that we keep comparing him to an FDR who never was and asking why Obama can’t be more like that. FDR himself couldn’t measure up to the myth of FDR.
Yes cundgulag, that is interesting. One thing I find remarkable is how good a job the right has done smearing Nancy Pelosi. She is two points lower than Boehner, so the smears evidently stuck. This is especially hard to believe when one revisits the series of Repiblican Speakers of the House. I mean Dennis Hastert?
As far as the “who couldn’t see this coming?” question. We got a pretty bad haircut in the last week. But, this time we took the “hold and roll” approach. I am obviously not a financial wizard, selling at the right time is good, but, buying back in at the right time is tricky. Most of the time in five years, if your initial choices are sound, you’re ahead to hold on. (Watch this turn out to be the most memorably stupid thing, I have ever written. I will recall it when I am living under a bridge snuggling up to a fifty gallon drum of burning trash.)
“Well, I’m confused. I have to figure out if I am an Obamabot or not. There definitely has been doubt sown in whether my assessment of Obama is starry eyed or grounded in wisdom and understanding. As it stands, he’s still my best hope…and I’m sticking with him…” That’s about exactly where I am, Swami just said it better.
While I was writing that the Dow just dipped into negative territory. I guess the Fed’s plan wasn’t convincing enough. Anybody got a spare fifty gallon drum?
Obama, like FDR, had the rare (once in maybe four generations in this country) chance to move progressive policy and rhetoric out of the fringe and into the mainstream. He opted not to even try.
Unlike Westen, I do not pretend to know why. Like Westen, I was a committed supporter of Obama who came to wonder sooner rather than later why I had bothered. The critiques of Westen’s critique are all very reasonable, and therefore miss the point. You cannot be reasonable when dealing with a crisis caused by malefactors of great wealth and their hired goons in Congress, abetted by well-paid slugs and timid careerists in what currently masquerades as a free press. The Westen critics posit a straw man: rhetoric alone never accomplished anything, so why criticize Obama for not using it to the max. (And besides, they continue, he did so kinda say most of this once or twice probably, sorta, anyway, so there.) That’s truthy enough, but deeds without words never accomplish anything substantive against committed opponents in American politics.
The battle to destroy Obama’s presidency was no secret. It began before he took the oath of office, but the Obama of the campaign has been mostly AWOL ever since. He has failed to lead the legions of young and old who signed on for his campaign. They’ve lost hope and gone home. Last year’s midterms show that. Unless Obama can rally them with words as well as deeds, he might well turn out to be a one-term president, an historical footnote somewhere between the unjustly maligned Jimmy Carter and the despicable Bush-Cheney mob he succeeded. Millard Fillmore anyone?
Yeah, I wish he had done a lot more. However, be careful of comparisons to FDR, because a lot of what Westen said about FDR does not square with history. See John Sides, “Mischaracterizing FDR to Indict Obama.”
Now you’re positing a straw man. They aren’t saying that rhetoric alone never accomplished anything as much as they are saying that rhetoric isn’t the silver bullet that Westen makes it out to be. FDR did not accomplish what he accomplished with rhetoric alone. A lot of circumstances came together to make FDR’s legacy as successful as it was. And people living through it didn’t necessarily see the glowing success that we see in hindsight.
That said, I also wish Obama had taken the fight more to the Right than he did, but I also think it’s possible that if he had been “tougher” it might have backfired. A big part of Obama’s success is that he has disciplined himself to not show anger, because angry black men don’t get white votes.
You write, “You cannot be reasonable when dealing with a crisis caused by malefactors of great wealth and their hired goons in Congress, abetted by well-paid slugs and timid careerists in what currently masquerades as a free press.” I agree such people cannot be reasoned with. However, it’s not necessarily a bad thing for the President to cultivate a public persona as a calm and reasonable person facing unreasonable opposition. At this point that may be his best option, actually.
Yes, I understand that. What I don’t understand are progressive activists, people who know what’s going on, who do nothing but sit around and whine about Obama. Those who understand what we’re facing shouldn’t have to wait for Obama or Jesus or the ghost of FDR or anybody else to tell them to get off their butts and start working to elect a more progressive Congress in 2012.
You may think Obama isn’t the President you wanted him to be. I may agree with you. But at the moment he’s the only Democrat who is likely to win the White House in 2012. And don’t kid yourself that Mitt Romney wouldn’t be that bad. And if you are interested in enacting more progressive policies in the U.S., the key to that is electing a more progressive Congress in 2012. That doesn’t just mean fewer Republicans, but also fewer Blue Dogs.
Obama may have had a Democratic majority in 2009 and 2010, but he did not have a progressive majority, and I don’t think people appreciate that. FDR actually had a congressional majority that worked with him in a way that Obama has not. And please click on the link and read what Nate Silver wrote (in March 2010) before arguing with me. Excerpt:
Yet all I hear is whine whine whine whine whine. I’m heartily sick of it.
“anybody got a spare 55 gallon drum?”
No, but I do know some great bridges, and I have a big green egg (and a welding machine!)
moonbat: (and others, but proximately moonbat) I generally have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions here, but on this one I think you are completely, disastrously wrong.
That’s absolutely true.
That’s mostly true, with the significant exclusion of the word ‘Reagan’. It is absolutely true that public opinion can be swayed by rhetoric, but it is not even close to true that it can be swayed by a single speech, or even by a single person giving a lifetime of speeches. Public opinion has been swayed in this country by 30 years of one of the most massive propaganda assaults in the history of propaganda…. Starting, crucially, with subversion of the media itself to be a mouthpiece for that propaganda.
What “the right” has figured out is that if you have a massive, sustained, multi-level propaganda campaign on the order of decades rather than months or years, you can control public opinion. And, while “Reagan” has been used as one of the chief fetishes for this assault, the actual man with that name has very little to do with it, as evidenced by the fact that if he tried to enact the policies today that he actually enacted while he was president, he’d be branded a flaming liberal by most of ‘the right’.
Presidential speeches have been a part of this massive campaign, but a small part. Most of what most presidents say is almost immediately forgotten by most people. What people remember are the firebrands on the AM radio, and the ‘analysts’ on the TV, and the columnists in their local newspaper, and so on and so on.
And because it must be a multi-decade sustained assault, it cannot be lead primarily by presidents who have 8 years, max, in the full glare of the political spotlight. It must be lead by the Karl Roves of the world, not by the Bumbling Bushes.
In other words, I firmly believe that ‘the bully pulpit’ simply doesn’t exist, or at least what does exist is so puny in comparison as to make it unrecognizable. As evidence for this, I point out what several critics have also pointed out; almost all of what Westen says Obama should have said are things that Obama has actually said, often on multiple occasions. It’s just that five minutes after he said it, the next political shiny bauble came along and all the learned people in the media dropped it, and of course the vast right wing conspiracy either conspired to ignore it, or snickered over the fact that they were the ones holding the shiny bauble.
And this is where I think you go most disastrously wring. The one place where Westen is absolutely correct about what the president has or has not said is in this: the president never placed blame, never demonized opponents (well … spotlighted the existing demonic aspects of his opponents, I guess would be more accurate…), never named names, so to speak.
It is possible that had he done so, he would get a lot more respect amongst the tiny portion of the electorate that is politically aware enough to be reading and writing in blogs such as this one. Possible. However, I believe he would have actually achieved nothing, nothing whatsoever. And I suspect that the criticism today would be that while he talks a great game, he gets nothing done.
As it is, the criticism is that while he gets lots of stuff done, he doesn’t talk the talk. As a pragmatic liberal, I am willing to live with that. I feel it is not really his job to talk the talk; that is the job of whoever should be the leftist version of Rove. The entire point of having a well-oiled propaganda machine is to create the opportunity to actually get things done. Taking advantage of whatever opportunity exists is the job of the president.
The problem he faces as a policy maker is that the American system of government is deliberately built to make change difficult, in that there are multiple veto points throughout the system. Obama never had a practical majority, in that Republicans and blue dogs had veto power in the Senate through the use of the filibuster. It was always the case, since day one, that Obama was going to need at least some support from at least some conservative dems and non-insane republicans in order to get absolutely anything done.
The republicans have been almost unanimous in their opposition to Obama since day one, and they have often had the blue dogs as allies. The key word in that last sentence, though, is ‘almost’. What he has gotten done, he’s gotten done by taking advantage of the tiny bit of space inherent in the word ‘almost’.
Had he gone on the attack from day one, it certainly would have been very satisfying to most of us, but he ran the very, very real risk of turning that ‘almost’ into ‘completely’.
OK, so reading back on this a feel like I am starting to stray from my point, so I’ll cut here, and summarize: you should never expect the president to be the standard bearer for the entire political philosophy to which he belongs, not unless being that standard bearer is more important than actually accomplishing real legislative tasks. The president is the executive, he is the person that is supposed to execute.
Instead, we need some separate person or people to be that standard bearer; somebody that is not constrained by the need to actually do the messy work of compromise and deal making that is required to execute. If we look around and do not see that, it is our fault. Be the standard-bearer you are looking for, do not try and force the president to be something which is simply not his role.
We need to figure out how to do that on the left. We do have powerful stories to tell, stories that will resonate with the American people, because the Liberal philosophy is at it’s heart based on compassion, on charity, on being our brother’s keeper. My faith in the American people has taken a beating in the past few years, but I think that when we are not scared out of our minds by terrorists, or brown people, or change, or whatever the boogie-man du jour, we are fundamentally a kind, compassionate people. We on the left need to find a way to break through the encrustation of fear caused by 30 years of right-wing propaganda, to get at the compassionate heart of America, and tell it the tale of how our policies, left wing policies, embody exactly what is best about this country.
We need to find a way to do that, and sniping at the one person who cannot be the bearer of that tale because he has a different role to fulfill does nothing to get us there.
Note I am NOT saying do not criticize Obama. Absolutely criticize the man. However, criticize him based on what he did or did not get accomplished during his term; criticize the executive on his execution of change.
I have my differences with what he has done and what he has left undone, just like everyone else. But on the whole I am very pleased with him, and it baffles me why it seems at times like I am alone in thinking that.
-Ian
They’ve lost hope and gone home. Last year’s midterms show that.
That statement is the equivalent of seeing Jesus in the spaghetti. Sometimes we see what we want to see so that it squares with our perceived reality. When in American history has voter turn out in a midterm election ever approached that of a Presidential election, and especially with the numbers as high as they were in 2008?
Not an Obamabot, but supporting him out of being convinced that he is both better than any expectable alternative, I still get queasy when I read things like the HuffPo article this link goes to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/panama-trade-deal_n_922398.html
I don’t know if it is just some Bush2 bureaucratic bombshell hidden in the fine print of a seemingly innocent trade deal or even if Obama is aware of it. Or is it even for reals? How to know?
But I do know that Cundgulag is on the right track. Susan Page fills in for Dianne Rheem on her npr radio show, and Ms. Rheem is not high on my list of liberals when it comes to giving conservative think tank prostitutes plenty of unchallenged air time.
Back to Obama: I’m guessing he feels he cannot be seen as the “angry black man” or make any realistic assessment of what the Republicans are doing to him without being accused of “playing the race card” so he just soldiers on. If he had been accorded 20% of the presidential respect given Bush2, he would be working wonders.
As far as progressives lambasting him, I think we all need to face the fact that we’re never going to have Michael Moore as President and get on with our lives. I mean, how long can one pout and retain any degree of being perceived as an adult? Some criticism is doubtless justified, but look at the realities of DC. Some things are just not going to happen in the face of the opposition we are so far utterly failing to refute. We need more Alan Graysons, no matter what you think of his bombast. If he were a conservative, he’d be at the top of their heap. We have people who find him “unseemly”. How over-genteel!
Good points, Ian. Thanks for clarifying my thinking.
Why is it always considered “whining” to state facts about the President? Sure, he’s the only choice in 2012, but he is what he is. Do we just give up speaking the truth about him?
moonbat said:
I had the same feeling during the Democratic presidential debates in 2008. It seemed that not a single candidate had the courage to mention Bush by name; it was always “the administration”.
moonbat and Theo – I don’t remember when it started but start it did, the obsessive proclivity of politicians, left or right, of starting, or ending a speech with “It’s time to move on.” Don’t clean up messes made in the past, don’t study why they occurred in the first place, don’t think about how the past effects the future – what is this but a version of what happens when the past is not studied and analyzed, the mistakes of the past are bound to be repeated.
In my mind, avoiding any mention of Bush, disregarding the 8 years it took him to practically destroy this fragile democracy, is no more than a version of, “It’s time to move on.”
Dear Maha: Sometimes the sound of one hand clapping is a slap in the face. I would prefer to think that I was howling mad at lost opportunities rather than whining about our nation’s fate. But whining or howling, I am mortally p.o.’d at myself from being suckered by a pol (I helped put a baker’s dozen or so behind bars as a reporter over the years, and should have known better) and furious at Obama’s … what? Political miscalculation? Sell out? Stupidity? Cowardice? Chicago economics fixation? I wish I knew. I suppose he’ll get re-elected, and I suppose that will be better for the country. But I am no longer sure of either one. That’s a hell of a comedown. Can’t blame me for howling, or even whining, if you insist. Well, you can, of course. But I wish you wouldn’t.
Noted innacuracies aside I’m struck by an apparent need to judge the entire article as correct or incorrect. It hardly distills down to a single point. I read very little by detractors giving equal treatment to what, in their opinion, that Westen nailed.
So what did Westen get right?
I share his disappointment that we did not see repeated, almost campaign-style primers on stimulus and debt ceiling as Bush had for privatizing Social Security. Never mind Bush’s couterfactual narrative…he got out there and tried to sell it…over and over, in different cities. Luckily Bush did not get what he wanted but you sure have to admire the repeated efforts he took.
Obama does not do outrage. It’s not in his bag of tricks. It’s his “windows”. He don’t do that. The hurt, hurt, indignation, pain and regret over the suffering of others have to be palpable and so thick they cannot be ignored….the same way President’s talk about the ultimate sacrifice made by the troops. Ever see a prosecuting attorney — they wear the indignation that they want the jurors to feel. It is palpable and can be cut with a knife. It’s hardly passivity.
…personality defect as Westen muses and quickly backs away from, refraining to pursue that one? Who hasn’t wondered? Defenses of Obama often seem so hair-trigger that an examination of how he might have done differently or better gets swept up in summary dismissal of any criticism that comes Obama’s way.
Having said that, most realize that he’s the best hope we have but I’d rather not believe that we’ve been reduced to the type of lock step agreement that we see from the GOP. Expressions of dissatisfaction might be as effective as the carrot. Nothing wrong with that.
These things are basically freebies. It involves how something is done, not what is done. People always did show up after news of the fight behind the gym after school at 3:30.
I do believe that a lot of the condemnation or disgreement has more to do with the perceived gall of someone who claims to know the effect of lackluster story-telling acumen. How dare he claim he knows that?
I’m not buying Sprung’s point by point rebuttals that provided examples of statements from Obama that were claimed to have been absent or lacking. Obama might as well be posting white papers on Google Books.
We simply don’t see the type of coordination of presidential messaging with congress-persons as we saw during the Bush reign.
I couldn’t agree more. To engender an enthusiastic following Obama has to project (or attempt to) project the demeanor and intent of one who will not back down. Sure he has to choose his battles but there are many, many more opportunities that are being exploited.
I was struck by Sprung’s remarks about the “substance of Westen’s attack boiling down to ‘Krugman, Krugman’ Krugman'”. …and Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Robert Reich and many more credible voices that continue to be unrepresented in Obama’s dubious “team of rivals” that includes those who dunnit from Wall Street or the members of their country club. There’s something to be said for going to the first string when in a pinch rather than the benchwarmers. I would have liked to have seen more of those who got it right represented in my President’s administration.
Some are apparently seeing red over the article. Maybe it would be good to reflect or at least admit to whatever points of agreement there are. I’ll readily grant that they scored on technicalities but he made some reasonably compelling points that the articles detractors begrudgingly conceded is they were mentioned at all.
Maybe we could qualify candidates by having them tell a few jokes. Told by some even the best jokes (and possibly stories too) fall flat. Don’t discount such skills and their potential for holding the attention of the listener.
Just kidding…
According to historians, the most intelligent presidents we’ve ever had were Hoover and Carter. I think we can legitimately add Obama to the list, which leads me to conclude that highly intelligent people do not necessarily make for highly successful presidencies?
However, if Clinton is as smart as he’s purported to be, that conclusion won’t hold water. What Hoover, Carter and Obama may have in common is a certain refinement, a (maybe) certain nobility of character, which prevents them from engaging in the dog-eat-dog, the sleazy world of daily politics. Just a thought, but since Obama has turned out to be somewhat of a conundrum, maybe worth thinking about.
Felicity, you might like Grisham’s “The Appeal” — its about a PR firm that promises to deliver a supreme court justice shoe in for a price. Carefully cultivated and vetted as a reliable player who will remain loyal to the causes of the unseen benefactors he’s clearly a fictional version of John Roberts, never ruling against a corporation when individual rights were in question.
But justice prevails in series of personal tragedies all of which would have been avoided had this justices rulings not have occurred. So he really wasn’t impervious. None of us are.