Does Pres. Obama even understand the presidency? His speech last night suggests he doesn't. It is no wonder that he waited so long to do his first televised speech from the Oval Office. He's no good at it.
But this goes beyond an inability to manage the atmospherics of a forum that should be a no-brainer for a president needing to portray himself as fully in charge.
Like it or not, the American presidency is all about a personal, direct and emotional bond with individuals who look to the occupant of the Oval Office as their advocate, friend, and protector -- no matter how foolish that expectation might be.
Instead, Obama instinctively seems to view the presidency as all about big ideas that should not be cluttered by in-the-weeds management issues like cleaning up an oil spill -- until political pressure forces him into the weeds.
Oddly, Obama the campaigner seemed to get the inspirational aspect of the job. But once in office, he just doesn't seem to get it.
Craig blogs daily for CQ-Roll CallFollow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford
With regards to his response to the Gulf spill, I think he is on course. He is doing everything possible to see that he resolves the issue in the most democratic manner. Why not understand with him?
Well thank goodness this President will not win an acting award!
President Obama KEEPS IT REAL!
O has always been a triangulator in the Bill Clinton mode of politics, understanding that his image is the one thing that he has to manage. The rest is expendable, negotiable, whatever. This is worse than Katrina, and exposes as nothing else has, just how hollow Obama is. He does not betray his principles simply because he has none to betray.
Now, back to the videos of the oil-drenched creatures who speak more eloquently than the photogenic phoney on the airwaves.
What I came up with, as an interim step, was: what gives rise the prevarication? And that got me thinking, "How do you quantify ''success''?" And that brought Rahm Emanuel to mind. (I don't mean that cynically ... I'm talking pragmatics.)
Is conventional politics about more than image maintenance? Cuz the pros I've worked with in communications and R&D, the real pros ... they weren't much for holding to "party line". They tended to be sorta free-thinker types. Because their objective was to heh to achieve their objective. And the objective (I'm talking about real pros here, not opportunistic careerists) wasn't "maintain a positive image".
Opportunistic careerists hire and promote and enable other opportunistic careerists ... whether they're running a government agency or a drill rig ... or a White House.
When you're up to your hips in alligators you drain the swamp. Iz whott. If PotUS got himself in a b'ball frame of mind he could do enormous good to the republic. But he's playing Chicago politics ... still. And that's poison.
I'm starting to have a new appreciation of Andrew Jackson ... and that's saying a lot.
Interesting - I turned into that very PBS show last night a little after it started. Made it through until Rahm Emanuel popped up on the screen. Stopped. Couldn't watch it anymore. I had a visceral reaction and without your professional background, didn't bother to analyze it any further than that.
But, at least now I've got a grip on what your post means. You can put banks (!?!?) on your list, too, as if . . . .
Banks, yaa. Hey, I'm wrestling with Bell about email service on my cellphone ... talk about malareky by the bucket!
We get the government we deserve? Now, how can that be ... let's see, we put up with benign neglect from parents, abuse from teachers, bullying from school-mates ... oh boy, we're really in for it aren't we.
stay well
You'd like John McCain and Sarah to step in? There is no upside to this. It is also true that BP has more technical knowledge concerning the solution than anyone in the government.
This Presidency is worse than the last. At least the last was honest in its illegality and radical self serving political interests, this Presidency purports to be different but isn't.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, particularly all the Obama apologists should watch last nights John Stewart show. All those that contend his campaign was clear that he was a centrist and his behavior in office is consistent with the campaign should be REQUIRED to watch.
Well, yep, I guess, though nowhere in the Constitution are these definitions to be found. And I would suspect, that among the faithful, among whom I suspect the author does not count himself, Mr. Obama manages to do just these things for which the author finds him wanting.
Mr. Obama is a doctrinaire corporatist and a tireless defender of the status quo, which just now means, transnational corporations at the pinnacle of all practical power, too big too fail, too greedy to be left on their own, and too important to the prospects of his and his party's hold on the political process to attack overmuch, beyond speechifying and quixotic bills to nowhere. And everybody in the other party is comparatively slavish to corporate power, which sometimes the press is depicts as a kind of ironic consolation to Obama's high-minded diffidence.
Great campaigners most often win, as do the most telegenic candidates. After which, in the cool light of the Oval Office, they must begin to do something they may not be well-suited for: governance itself. Obama is lights-out better at this than his predecessor, but this too is a kind of consolation, too little just now, to garner but so much applause.
And why do you paint me as racist? Find proof anywhere among my literally thousands of comments on this site that I am any such thing. You can't, because there is none to find.
Lobbyists helped write the healthcare reform bill, which establishes private insurance companies as quasi-institutions of government. President Obama made side deals with the pharmaceutical companies and the health insurance companies that took the public 'off the table' in the midst of the bill's creation. Lobbyists from the financial sector have engaged in a full court press on Congress and the White House re financial reform, and the most substantive and far-reaching aspects of that bill have been mooted-- thanks in part to lobbying by Obama's Treasury secretary-- so your point about lobbyists is sort of no point at all.
As for not starting wars, try finding out about troops in Pakistan. Try learning a bit more about predator drones and clandestine special forces ops.
Finally, I agree that most of what's busted now got broken by Republicans. I voted for Obama, loathed Bush beyond words, and am no more happy when a white man fools me than when a black man does-- only in the case of the former president and the current president, I am not fooled.