The Snooze Factor
What is that Barack Obama is saying? Or more to the point, what is he not saying?
In yesterday's MSNBC interview, Keith Olbermann keeps throwing Obama easy soft balls in the form of short, pithy lines that go straight at the blatant lies at the core of the recent rebound of the Republican ticket, and Obama fumbles every single one, coming off as the most scripted, cautious politician ever. Finally a somewhat exasperated Olbermann asks the candidate if he has given any thought to "simplifying your message." And then, to be even more helpful, he adds, "Like Reagan did when he reduced everything to 'Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?'" Obama replies in the affirmative, then goes off on an explanation of his simplified message which runs for several paragraphs. MSNBC meanwhile runs a text underneath reading "Can Obama Keep It Simple?"
But verbosity is not the only problem. Obama's comments on the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae meltdown suck all the politics from the issue and reduce it to a matter of competency. The crisis, according to Obama, is merely "a structural problem that needs to be fixed. He further notes, "I have to be fair on this one, Republicans and Democrats I think, in Congress, did not pay enough attention to the structural problem." And what is the structural problem? "Not regulating the financial markets generally," and specifically "not updating some of our financial regulations... This has ironically hurt the market... a little bit of well-applied regulation and transparency and accountability actually helps the market, helps the economy grow, and that's what I want to restore when I am president."
Right.
VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN: "THEY'LL PAY ATTENTION TO STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS!"
Umm.
How about this instead: "We need to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to protect American's investments in their homes. But if the government can lend a helping hand those at the top of the economic ladder, it can and must lend a hand to those at the bottom. My plan balances both. John McCain's just helps the rich."
Was that so hard?
This comes just days after Obama's assertion on Fox News that the troop surge in Iraq "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." Not only a stupid thing to say, but flat-out wrong.
According to Richard Cohen's op-ed in today's Washington Post, Obama's performance on ABC's This Week was no better:
Obama was cool, diffident, above it all -- unflustered, unflappable, unexcitable and downright unexciting. These "uns" ran on, a torrent of cool that frosted my flat-panel TV... Pathetic... Maybe he's worried about how America would receive an angry black man or maybe he's just too cool to ever get hot, but the result is that we have little insight into his passions: What, above all, does he care about? The answer, at least to the Sunday TV viewer, was nothing much.
Ouch.
I have heard all about Obama's cool disposition, and how this supposedly qualifies him to be commander in chief, but unless he can show some fire he is never going to get there. More than that, this is not just a question of style but substance. McCain's program is just more Bush/Republican corporate giveaways. Welfare for the rich. Obama can save all that "well-applied transparent regulation" for "structural problems" for the classroom, which is where he may end up if he keeps up like this.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I guess I'm in the minority; I liked it. He may have gone over some people's heads, but too damn bad. I'm tired of everything in this country being brought down to the NASCAR/trailer park level. That's why we're in the mess we're in now. There are still educated and thoughtful people in this country, and this fascination with focusing all strategies on "hard-working" folks from Scranton is getting old.
Silly me, wanting an erudite president, when so many talking heads are calling for an angry one quick with pithy statements. Where have we seen that before?
Keith did OK with President Obama. However, I do wish he was a bit more respectful and not quite so difficult with some of the questions. Keith really needed to give the President more time to thoroughly follow through with all of his responces. The brilliance and intellect of this genius requires more time for him to convey his intricate and nuanced answers. Also, Keith seemed to stair directly into our Presidents eyes a bit too long and intense for my taste. Is Keith by any chance biased against him or is he just being tuff? Still a good interview.
I watched that mad man on THAT other channel for as long as I could take it. Even though that Bill is cute he sure could do a life-time in charm school.
excellent article--concise insights. Simple enough?
Senator Obama has a problem alright, its called he is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the USA. The cracks in his armour are starting to show......
Nice blog!
My daughter, age 7, and I watched Obama's discussion with George S. last Sunday. Obama made some of his usual points, but afterwords, only one point stuck with my daughter. "Obama says that John McCain is a good man" she told me. "McCain is a good man"
That may be so, but that is not the main message to convey to US voters, many of whom will pay about as close attention to this campaign as my daughter.
It seems he may have finally stopped talking like professor. Good he needs to make clear how Obama and McCain differ on torture, taxes, science and education.
LOL
I agree, he needs to keep it simple. The very characteristics that would make him such a good president also make him a flawed candidate. As much as it will pain him to do it, he needs to dumb it down for the masses.
I completely disagree with this article... let everyone else call the GOP liars, Barack will stay above the fray!
Absolutely and how almost tragic it has been and will continue to be. I am realizing that the very characteristics that would have made many who have sought the office good presidents have also made them flawed candidates.
It's beyond time that we chuck our flawed presidential system of government in favor of one that would at least make good presidential material actually end up as president.
That was no interview-it was coaching from the sports guy! One word-BORING! Losing interest fast-BOin08! Or maybe 12.
hmmmm...lo
Bob, if you wrote this article from a standpoint of recognizing the cultural differences which play out between the perceptions of white folks and black folks, you might have been able to grab the essence of what conflicting roles Obama must walk. Both republican and democratic colleagues of McCain have described his temper and his disposition as caustic and overbearing; however, there is no implicit fear of an angry white male which would settle upon the electorate and stereotype him, in a way it would with Obama. After being labeled a Marxist, socialist, communist, Muslim and an elitist, I would probably bet that calling Obama a boring guy doesn't sound so good.
A lot of us black folks, wouldn't mind trading the other various things we are considered in American society to be reduced to level-headed, calm and reserved individuals. The freedom to simply be seen as a person who on face level is exactly who he says he is, appears frightening what your piece seems to steal from Obama.
Like most people, no one is calm or angry all of the time; as I imagine most complex, intelligent people are based on the situation, here Obama choose to be measure with Olbermann who is considered to be rather excitable. Good for Obama.
I think Bob Ostertag and Keith Olbermann are both right when they say that Obama should learn to simplify his statements.
Part of why the Repugs have beaten the Democrats in so many presidential elections is that their candidates are coached by a seasoned PR machine to deliver pithy, easy-to-understand sound bites.
In the KO interview, Obama made the classic Democratic blunder of talking too much. He used a lot of words and a lot of complex sentences. What he needed to do was distill his message to its essence.
Until he learns to do that, he will come off as "aloof," and this will put off many swing voters who might really like what he has to say, if only they could figure out what the heck he is saying.
Yeah, and if I hear Biden say one more time how 'smart' palin is Ithink I will mur
When Obama goes through contortions to avoid saying "lie" but in reality means, "lie," well, Obama doesn't sound honest. Honesty includes forthrightness.
He punches back quite nicely, just not on TV when it counts. Stop channeling Spock when a TV camera gets on you, Barack, start channeling Kirk!
Agreed fully! Get out of the town halls - now is time for gigantic rallies.
Here is another thing he could say:
"Can you afford to send your kids to private schools? Cause John McCain has said he supports abolishing the Department of Education and in his speech at the GOP convention he said he support more "options" for parents on schooling for their kids. If his education plan is similar to the options he offering on his health care plan, then I guess he's for supporting private or corporate of our school systems and eventually eliminating public schools. I ask you - Do you think the average American afford to send their kids to private schools? And are private schools going to set up in rural or economically depressed areas? So the best schooling will go to the rich kids and the rest of us will be stuck with a failing school."
Olberman wasn't interviewing Obama, he was throwing campaign suggestions at him. Obama was carefully controlling the interview to keep it from becoming little more than a litany of Olberman's criticisms about his campaign.
Olberman is passionate and his heart is in the right place, but it is Obama and Biden's campaign to win or lose, and they must make the tactical and strategic play as they see it. Calling the opposition liars (as Olberman obviously wanted Obama to do) would have been a grave error -- they are liars but to call them liars as opposed to challenging the lies treads perilously close to an ad hominem attack.
Obama handled the interview well, given the circumstances.
The thing is, the republicans are controlling the debate. Watching this interview, I kept waiting for the "zinger" that never came. All polls aside, my gut tells me Obama is going at this the wrong way, and if he doesn't change course soon, we're all gonna wake up on Nov. 5th with a 4-year McCain hangover!
The republicans always play dirty, and they appeal to the truth of our darker sides in the process. Obama needs to take off the gloves and start swinging..
It is up to Obama and Bidden as to how they fight this thing to its conclusion, but given what's at stake, we ALL deserve their best efforts, and so far I don't believe we are seeing that.
How are Republicans controlling a Democratic debate?
Agreed! What Ostertag overlooks here is how quickly the 'conservative right' went after Olbermann in painting him be the sole force controlling the messaging of MSNBC. In fact, we've had several stories here on HuffPo regarding Olbermann being demoted along with Matthews for being inappropriate for the election coverage; since, they are both more opinion than fact-based journalists; although personally Olbermann does go out of his way to source his remarks.
Frankly, the cautious nature of Obama is good not bad; and in no way indicates the lack of fire or drive; he is smart to be who he is and not reach in the gutter just to satisfy those who want their politics fought in a sewer. I saw a person who handles himself in a manner that we have become unaccustomed to over the past 7+ years, and should Obama lose, the American people will gravitate to the leadership they deserve.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
