Hard to believe I know, but Pres. Obama is a human being. I say it’s hard to believe because when you are a war criminal, a torture enabler, assassin, drone war operator, etc., people often forget that you are made of flesh and bones. But, after further reflection about last night’s performance, I can’t help but speculate that Pres. Obama is suffering from some sort of personal setback. He looked uncharacteristically sad.
Reading his face, it was hard to escape the conclusion that the president had just received some sort of bad news, perhaps related to himself or someone close to him. Of course, we may never know whether this is true. But it’s my speculation and I’m sticking to it.
17 Comments.
Ted,
I remember thinking, pretty much, the same thing. Did someone die? Has his wife left him (which would explain the — frankly — obnoxious anniversary announcement)? I think Al Gore might have been onto something when he blamed the altitude because Obama really seemed … slurry. He had “ums” in his speech and pauses.
I have a lot of problems with Obama (mainly the ones you mentioned in the lead-in to this thread), but I do not fault his abilities as a speaker. Until this debate. He really seemed out of it. I wonder if it’s possible he’s had a revelation about how totally ineffectual he’s been. I remember people crucifying (and rightly so) Dubya for failing to get aid to New Orleans. Somehow, though, the same pile of blame doesn’t land in the lap of a president who has been in charge for four years when the issue is jobs. (And for the record: some pittance-job that pays minimum wage or thereabouts doesn’t count when it’s being held up as a replacement for a job that paid a living wage and benefits.)
Also, a completely tangential comment, but The O mentioned his grandmother, who ended up as the VP of a bank, and how grateful she was for social security. Question: Do banking VPs have to rely on social security? Somehow, I think that if you get to be a VP of a bank, you aren’t going to be in with the cat-food-for-dinner crowd.
@Alex, Well, Obama has always been a terrible debater, and never any good at extemporaneous speaking. Thus his overreliance on his TelePrompTer. Thus also his refusal to hold press conferences—what has it been now, seven months? President Nixon, beleaguered and hateful of the press, nevertheless managed to hold them at least weekly.
Indeed, regarding jobs, Obama could and should have directly pushed for the direct employment of 20 million or more Americans under a new WPA. Krugman and others urged him to do so; he dismissed them. Now we know that his advisers convinced him the recession wouldn’t be that bad. Well, it’s his fault for believing them.
Alex, it depends on whether she was a day-to-day banker or whether she was in the Investment or Sales banking group. A vice-president at a small branch can be a thankless job with little or no real power, – like the Vice-President of the USA, Biden. A regular investment accounts manager in Sales and Marketing at a bank can make tons more in money and benefits than a banking VP. That’s the problem with the Internet today – every Joe McKnow can make nitwit comments lacking any real knowledge on a subject…..every time you assume something, you make an ass out of you and me.
@Alex-
Apples and oranges comparison, given that the Democratic party wasn’t blocking every effort Bush made to get aid to New Orleans- Bush didn’t bother trying to get aid to New Orleans, because he didn’t care. If he had repeatedly tried to get aid to NO and the Democrats blocked his every move, the blame would’ve fallen on the party BLOCKING everything, not the person attempting to help, and frankly, rightfully so.
Also, your definition of “totally ineffectual” is way off, IMO.
@Whimsical: Please explain how the overwhelmingly Democratic House and Senate of January 20, 2009 “blocked” Obama’s agenda.
Ted, you really can’t say anything good about Obama. You have resorted to attacking Obama over the damn teleprompter which has been used by other presidents. The Republicans have used the teleprompter as a racist dog-whistle to say that he is somehow stupid, I think you shouldn’t go to that level. I feel sorry for Obama, he has been attacked by both the right and left and I hope he survives that and wins reelection next month for the sake of us all.
Even if he used a teleprompter more than other presidents, that would actually prove that he is smarter because he is utilizing technology more to help himself. Obama’s problem the other night was that he was just surprised by Romney’s lies and couldn’t catch up to him, Obama will do better next time.
@Albert, yes, all presidents use TelePrompTers. I have used them (on my ABC News gig). With Obama, however, there is a startling gap between his scripted, read, rehearsed speeches and his off-the-cuff remarks. He just doesn’t think fast on his feet. Which is unusual. Even the Shrub could do the back and forth thing.
But you are right about one thing, Obama is human. Opposed to Romney who has a robotic personality, maybe that’s one of the reasons why he “won” the debate. Someone who believes that corporations are people cannot IMHO relate to humanity the same way someone who doesn’t.
@Ted: It’s useless trying to argue with Obamabots like Whimsical (aka, RW). You’re wasting your time. RW’s response will be this: Blue Dogs. If it wasn’t Blue Dogs, it would be something else. You see, when you’re a shameless cheerleader like RW, these always an excuse. Always, no matter what – they MUST defend Fearless Leader. You see, he’s “The One”.
Forget congress, just take an example Obama had 100% direct control over: lobbyists. Obama promised no lobbyists would be appointed in his administration, a promise he broke in the first month of his administration. Since then, he’s broken it repeatedly and excessively. And I repeat: Those were decisions Obama had 100% control over. No matter to the Obamabot’s like RW though. They will defend every move The One makes, no matter how shameless and dishonest.
Also notice the comments you received from Obamabot Albert, that you are now a racist because you mentioned Obama’s weak track record on speaking extemporaneously. This is how the blind devotees think and behave: If you’re on the right and criticize Obama, you will be attacked. If you’re on the left and criticize Obama, you will be VICIOUSLY attacked. You will be called racist, hateful, a right-wing plant, and every other disgusting name these trolls can think of.
If Obama loses, the enablers like RW and Albert will have to take a look in the mirror. It is they who allowed this failed president to get away with anything and everything, every broken promise, every ineffectual move, every phony baloney compromise, every shredding of the Constitution, you name it. The Obamabots never demanded accountability and now Obama is paying the price. He’s barely leading and could possible lose, thanks to the Obamabots like RW and Albert. Pity.
@Ted
You mean the “overhwlemingly” Democratic Congress he had for 24 Congressional working days, before the Republicans gained the power to block anything and everything? Cause that’s an eyeblink, in political time. There isn’t a person on the planet who could’ve gotten more passed during that less than one month period than Obama did- and to repeat the right wing lie that he had an overwhelming majority long enough to get anything passed only shows a desire to bash Obama at the expense of actual facts. Oh wait, I forgot who I’m talking to.
@whimsical: FDR.
The point, if you read what I wrote, is not what Obama could have gotten passed without opposition. The point is (a) Republicans didn’t block ANYTHING until late 2009 and (b) Obama didn’t even PROPOSE a jobs bill.
@Ted
Apples and Oranges. FDR had a non-sociopathic Republican party that was actually interested in governing. Had he had to deal with today’s Republican’s he would’ve fared no more than slightly better than Obama, and that only because he was white.
Oh, and Robert Drapers book provides evidence of a meeting held on January 20, 2009 where leaders in the Republican party decided to block everything Obama would propose. So, they decided on their strategy on the day Obama was sworn in, sorry.
@Whimsical
You call the Republicans of today sociopaths, yet you propose a time-table of twenty to thirty years of “reform” as a means of dealing with these sociopaths.
I’m curious, Whimsical. How long before you’re old enough to receive Social Security? You’d better up your time-table before the Republicans take it away from you.
Albert Cirrus: “The Republicans have used the teleprompter as a racist dog-whistle to say that he is somehow stupid, I think you shouldn’t go to that level.”
Albert has no idea what he’s talking about. Repugs have a lot of racist code, but that wasn’t an example. That was contrarianism and projection — do recall Palin being caught reading simple concepts from her hand shortly thereafter.
And your continous butthurt over any criticism of Obama makes you sound more and more like a parody. The last few messages on this site made me think I’m being sucked into a Twilight Zone episode based on Poe’s Law.
Just to keep things interesting, here’s how non-authoritarians think: when they revere someone, they are still willing to offer criticism of the subject of their adoration. If you want people to believe that you’re not an authoritarian, you have to let some things slide. Keep getting twitchy people hurt by the policies of your particular golden calf speak up and they’ll correctly deduce that you’re a lickspittle and dismiss your concerns. And where would the fun be in that?
Ted’s point (in the comments below) about a WPA-type jobs program was right on the money. I would add, that Obama also did not attempt to fight for a Single-Payer healthcare system.
Anticipating Whimsical’s “but he knew those could never pass” argument, I will say that I believe it better to fight hard for a big solution, lose, and then run on that big solution in the next election.
@Susan
Your only other option is system collapse. That’s one of the few things Ted gets right- you either fight as hard as you can, every day, forever, for incremental gains, knowing you’ll probably be dead before you see significant change, or you collapse the system. Unfortunately, Ted’s completely wrong about what the short, medium, and long term consequences of a collapse will be. He’s right about the historical-term consequences; but while he’s on record as being willing to put my children, my grand children, my great-grandchildren, my great-great-grandchildren and my great-great-great grandchildren through Hell if it’ll better the country, I’m not. Not while there’s another way.
As for social security I havent counted on it since I became politically aware and noticed the clear trend of the left’s failed electoral policy continually pushing the Democratic party right. I predicted in my teens that the the left’s ego would never alllow them to abandon their punishment strategy -even to achieve their goals- and as a result, they would continue to push the Democratic party rightward until they wound up electing someone that would cause a societal collapse (completing their complete capitulation to the very right wing they profess to fight and decline into irrlevancy due to being fooled into doing the right-wing’s desires) or trigger WWIII.
And with the left’s relentless push to elect Mitt, they may get a two-fer!
Either way, Ive known for decades that SS wasn’t going to be there for me unless the left got a clue. And nothing in the intervening decades between then and now has concinvced me the left plans to get a clue.
@aaron
“I will say that I believe it better to fight hard for a big solution, lose, and then run on that big solution in the next election.”
And that, in a nutshell, is why the left gets nothing accomplished. They’d rather have someone who proposes everything and winds up with nothing then someone who gets something to build on and then bust their asses to build on it.
Give me a President who gives me a building block every single time. That, I can work with. Someone who is selfish enough to hold out for everything, which gurantees me nothing- is not my idea of Presidential material.
It’s not how the game is played. And because it’s not how the game is played, it’s a recipie for exactly what the left has gotten for the last 40 years- complete and utter failure.