The Shrinkage Factor
Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife. Does anyone doubt Obama's fidelity? Now that it's near certain he will be the Democratic nominee, I've been trying to sort out why I don't think this is a good thing. It's not that I'm pro-infidelity, mind you. As a psychologist who has seen many couples torn to pieces over it, I know how corrosive betrayal is to a relationship. Yet, Obama's certain fidelity is somehow troubling me.
Now, to many of you on this site who have seen my postings before (and I want to thank you for the bodyguard I felt the need to hire), you know that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. Perhaps I was more drawn to her to begin with because of her fierceness. It made me feel safe knowing there'd be this big, strong bear of a Mother in the House protecting her children at all times, ever vigilant and ever ready to do whatever it took to keep us out of harm's way. On the other hand, Obama's monotonic calm admittedly kind of scares me. Maybe because he looks kind of scared himself, especially in Hillary's presence. I'm not the first to comment on this. Maureen Dowd, an Obama-ite from early on, noted how he seemed to shrink (and, I would add, blink an awful lot) when forced to be in the same room with her. She may be over-doing the Rocky Balboa thing, but Obama's idea of getting into the ring seems to consist of trying to reason her out of the fight and the belief that if he just speaks quietly and soothingly to her, while putting a platonic, friendly hand on her shoulder, she'll settle down and leave the ring peaceably: in other words, if he's nice. Obama is a nice guy. And, as most any woman will tell you, "nice" guys finish last. And they finish last because, well, they just aren't very sexy. Power, for better or worse, is a turn on. I have no doubt that Obama wants to be President, which must mean that the guy wants power. And someone, most likely Axelrod, convinced Obama that the time to go for the gold was now — not in 8 years, but NOW. Obama bought into it and, I guess, the rest is history.
But Obama was not ready. Even though he will be the nominee, he, personally, was not ready. And maybe he never would be, come to think of it. Because what Obama seems to lack is what makes these powerful guys sexy: comfort with his aggression. He's just not comfortable with all that macho, aggressive, puffed-up-chest-capable-of-surviving-torture-ready-to-do-battle-if-necessary kind of thing. In fact, Dowd's characterization of him as a gazelle (to Clinton's lioness) and her affectionately nicknaming him Obambi implies that even she doesn't find him all that manly. Comparing her guy to a motherless baby deer must bring out Dowd's frustrated maternal longing, else why on earth would she want Bambi for President?
Which brings me back to Obama's irksome, wholesome, certain fidelity. It's actually not the fidelity that bothers me. I know that's a good thing. It's that shrinkage factor that has me worried. I think if it weren't for Axelrod, the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party, Obama may indeed be out there quietly making his case that nice guys really, really, really can finish first. And he'd have lost a long time ago. But Axelrod is no Obama. Axelrod knows and knew from the get-go that Obama had to at least try to appear like someone who could take a swing every now and then.
So now Obama is talking about "aggressive" diplomacy. I love it. It's brilliant, actually. He's found a way (or Axelrod has, I can't know for certain) to be comfortable with some type of aggression. He going to show us that he is not afraid to talk to anyone, even a big, bad bully like Ahmadinejad. I'm just worried that Ahmadinejad is going to pop out from behind the door as Obambi is entering the room and say, "Boo!"
P.S. I promise to support him anyway. He's going to need all the help he can get.
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
It's not that Obama does not possess alpha-male tendencies, but it seems he self-consciously maintains an especially reserved demeanor because noone is going to elect a too-passionate black man the first black POTUS.
I've also noted that part of Obama's appeal to independents is the very fact that he does come across as one's civil peer rather than as one's parent -- independents and libertarians find the 'parental' image, whether of father (i.e. Bush) or mother (i.e. Clinton), to be the seed of the authoritarian 'nanny state' (which comes in both left and right flavors).
It is Obama's horizontal approach - speaking to voters as adults, not children - that constitutes a big part of this appeal to independent-minded folks (and look how well he does in the north west where this political mentality is the dominant one).
So men are more macho/agressive, and thus make better leaders, if they cheat on their wives? So that's what Bill Clinton was doing in the oval office, he was proving his leadership qualities.
I dispute your premise that comfort with aggression is a positive leadership trait. Bush for all his faults is very comfortable with 'all that macho, aggressive, puffed-up-chest-capable-of-surviving-torture-ready-to-do-battle-if-necessary kind of thing' and so is McCain. These qualities have hamstrung our foreign policy over the past 8 years, as the answers to all problems seems to be dropping bombs first, diplomacy second. A president must be WILLING to be aggressive if necessary, but I'm not sure they need to enjoy it.
Is there any evidence that Bush, the macho texas cowboy has cheated on his wife? That's the one promise he's kept, to keep his pants on in the White House. If Bush has remained faithful that shatters another one of your premises, that fidelity equals lack of agression.
Axelrod, the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party? get serious don't you mean Terry M.
John Mcain
George Bush
your tough guys.
Sylvia Welsh, you and Dowd clearly do not understand the "Angry Black Man" stereotype. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Obama acted like Mr. Mucho Macho then the media would use words like militant to describe him. That word attached to a Black man is not a good thing. In addition it would make him look more like the Rev. Wright that we see in those 30-second clips.
Anyone that has known Obama has said that he is unflappable, calm and comfortable in his own skin. This is who he is and I think his consistency in mannerisms/personality connect with a lot of people. With Hillary, you don't know who she's going to be tomorrow.
I myself appear to be unflappable and I do let the meaningless stuff roll off my back, BUT when someone crosses the line or if I REALLY believe strongly in something, everyone better back the truck up.
How exactly is Clinton your mother bear? She wants your money to pay the enormous campaign debt she owes herself. She's willing to "obliterate" Iran -- women, children and bears alike -- and she voted with Bush/McCain in the Senate to name the Iranian National Guard a terrorist group . She offered up that ill-advised gas tax holiday nonsense, knowing full well that it would NEVER pass the Senate, nor would it help those she pretends to coddle. Then she pretended to know more than every economist in the nation. She looked us in the collective eye and lied about Bosnia. She never bothered to read the NIE before she gave W. permission to go to war. She sent her surrogate out to cry sexism and signal female voters not to vote Obama in November (even though it was her other surrogate who went on television to proclaim that she's got more than two "cajones" herself.)
Who's mother bear is this? And is anybody around to protect her children from her?
Please. If you're going to vote your INTERESTS by voting D in November -- as we all should -- then stop with the pseudo-informed psychological dress-downs of Sen. Obama. If you expect us to judge Sen. Clinton on her merits as a candidate (and not a gender), then you have no right to question Sen. Obama's 'manliness' and expect that to be a serious point of debate. You've trivialized yourself and Sen. Clinton with this article.
Excellent post!!!
Well said!
Say It Again! Say It Again!
Here we have a writer, who is telling us why Obama is not the best person for the job, because he's a nice guy, and she wouldn't want to date him. To examine how nice he is, you have to determine as compared to who. The writer says, he doesn't cheat on his wife- so, he is nice as compared to Vito Fossella (not sure if that is the correct spelling) and Bill Clinton. Probably, also nice when you compare him to Hillary Clinton, because despite the actions taken against him by the Clinton campaign - commander in chief, Rev Wright, he has not once brought up the scandals of the 90s or Peter Paul. Credit to Obama, not David Axelrod. Also, a smart candidate chooses the right team and listens to them. A successful administration will always have people behind the President who will advise, and in the end, the President makes the decision. Obama has chosen the right people and chosen to take the right advice at the right time. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton, who has listened to the wrong people and assembled the wrong team. Finally, I think it is interesting how people use this he's not ready line, when he has more national experience than Bill Clinton did and was in the state senate before that. Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas--not California or Fla--Arkansas. U want to make the experience argument---Biden, Dodd or Richardson should have been your candidate.
I appreciate the article and I can't say your wrong on the observations, but I have to disagree with some of the analysis. You do realize that an aggressive black man running for president would fuel an ENORMOUS amount of racism right? Or at least it would scare some people. Angry black man!!! Also, if he tried to forcibly throw Hillary to the floor (figuratively of course) he'd be called more sexist than he is now... when he's being polite... He's in a very very tough situation where his every word and attitude will be monitored and analyzed... or in Geraldine Ferraro's case completely fabricated... But that aside...
I do notice the politeness of Obama, but you can't ignore the most recent back-and-forths he's been waging against Bush AND McCain. He's not taking anything! He's hitting harder than he's being hit! More importantly, he's winning.
But I do believe he needs someone to get fired up for him and I think Chuck Hagel is the guy to do it. He's got a very rational attitude but he's not afraid to tell you where to stick it... only with a politer choice of words than he'd really wish to use.
I like how you attribute all of Obama's aggressive traits (which you also inform us are the only things that make him attractive) to Axelrod without anything more concrete than a comparison between Axelrod and Rove.
If there's anyone on a democratic campaign to compare to a calculating, dividing, and out of date strategist, it's Mark Penn.
Though there may be some who support Hillary Clinton with a reasoned intelligent argument, this is not one of those. I was more than ready to support Hillary for the nomination and the presidency when she first announced. During this campaign, however, she has turned me toward Barack Obama with her multiple personalities and voices, her never admitting that she was wrong (see Iraq vote), her extreme fabrications, her need to change the rules as its suits her, her implied racism, etc. Yes, she is fierce in standing up to another Democrat, but where was that fierceness in standing up to Bush or this administration. She has done little to fight this fascist regime in Washington because she is really just a part of the big Washington political establishment. It is time to move beyond that, to something and someone more human and less politically programmed.
nealrob: "Yes, she is fierce in standing up to another Democrat, but where was that fierceness in standing up to Bush or this administration."
Or that fierceness when said Democrat was sitting right next to her?
"I am honored......" and the very next day, in outrage, "Shame on you Barack Obama...!!!!"
nealrob: "Yes, she is fierce in standing up to another Democrat, but where was that fierceness in standing up to Bush or this administration."
Or that fierceness when said Democrat was sitting right next to her?
"I am honored......" and the very next day, in outrage, "Shame on you Barack Obama...!!!!"
Amen to the rest of your post...
I'm not sure I understand what Obama's fidelity to his wife has to do with the rest of your post.
I am pretty sure that George Bush and Jimmy Carter were faithful to their wives, I would think that Reagan and Ford have been too, and I'm sure many other presidents over the past 1000 years or so have been faithful to their wives, so that's another point of yours that doesn't make sense to me.
In fact, none of your post makes sense to me. But, it was good for a laugh, so I thank you for that, at least.
This probably won't be the last comment on this couple's sex life.....
For a certain segment of the population, there is an unhealthy interest in other peoples' bedrooms.....
Add the Obamas' race and the interest is all out of proportion to sanity......
Funny.
I could see claims of sexism against him working much better if Obama WAS the macho male type.
But he isn't.
And people are still crying sexism anyhow.
*sigh*
Or maybe, just maybe... he knew that in the end, Hillary was still on the same team. That he could win by being nice and not practicing in the politics of destruction on someone in your own party. That in the end, he would need the Clintons and the other Dems. What's the point of being tough and tearing down the Clintons personally when you can win without doing that? You only hurt yourself and the party in the long run.
As my mother told me long long ago, those that vocalized the whole "macho, aggressive, puffed-up-chest-capable-of-surviving-torture-ready-to-do-battle-if-necessary kind of thing" where in the end the biggest cowards of them all. It was the cool, calm, and confident ones you didn't want to go up against, because in the end, they were the ones that would take you down if pushed too far.
Who needs aggression? Really.
Personally, I'm kind of tired of the bellicose, puffed chest, macho politics. That's all hubris and show. Obama is more like the judo master of politics whereas Hillary is like a pro-wrestler. The calm calculated riposte is far more effective and impressive imo than loud, in your face charge.
What you imply is incorrect and contradictory by your own words. Somehow in the first paragraph you undermine his fidelity and your write the following " Yet, Obama's certain fidelity is somehow troubling me." And in the fourth paragraph you contradict yourself with this gem "It's actually not the fidelity that bothers me. I know that's a good thing." Then you get to the heart of your piece "shrinkage".
The type of angry man you want him to be is not his way & shouldn't be confused with weakness and your attempts to emasculate him are dishonorable. The power of Obama is when he makes an argument is that he educates with a series of facts so the public understands.
What is it about his relationship with Michelle that really bothers you? Is it the joy & contentment that he and Michelle seem to have with each other?
Obama achieved much in his life and to imply that Axelrod must give direction on surviving to a successful black man who is on the brink of the nomination is to dismis his success.
Obama has courage & to imply the word "Boo" will frighten him is to undermine how much perseverance & strengh it has taken for him to be front and center. His skills, talents & vision are succeeding despite your view of what a strong, intelligent black man should be.
Your words passively aggressively imply a weakness and that is a mistake. If you do not believe me ask
Great response fedupcitizen.....
My favorites:
"The type of angry man you want him to be is not his way & shouldn't be confused with weakness and your attempts to emasculate him are dishonorable."
"What is it about his relationship with Michelle that really bothers you? Is it the joy & contentment that he and Michelle seem to have with each other?"
Jealousy, perhaps that her candidate, or maybe she, has had such a public, ugly, and humiliating marriage...?
"Obama achieved much in his life and to imply that Axelrod must give direction on surviving to a successful black man who is on the brink of the nomination is to dismis his success."
""Obama has courage & to imply the word "Boo" will frighten him is to undermine how much perseverance & strengh it has taken for him to be front and center."
"His skills, talents & vision are succeeding despite your view of what a strong, intelligent black man should be."
Therein lies this person's problem, with irrefutable evidence staring her in the face, she still can't (won't) see the strong, intelligent Black man. To her detriment.
Sad.
Thanks. It is if she cannot find anything to oppose so she invents a criticism that is objectionable and demeaning based on the idea of what she wants a strong man to be.
It is offensive.
I admire the quiet dignity that Obama displays in the face of all of this opposition and it actually makes him a better candidate to me.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
