Morford: Why Won't Obama Step Up?

[villager]

Why won’t Obama step up?


Is this not the plea? Has this not been our innermost wail, our collective hew and cry when we watch Obama sort of meekly, sort of halfheartedly go at it lo these past mostly so-so, only occasionally encouraging, but oh my God they could be so much better past few months/four years? You bet it has.

Because oh, what fun it wasn’t to watch in sort of jaw-dropped disbelief as Obama let opportunity after opportunity whoosh on by like a sweet softball from heaven during that first debate, countless chances to unleash some devastating intellectual whoop-ass all over Mitt Romney’s oily head and wooden heart, not to mention his endless falsehoods and pathetic open threat to giant talking birds who help children learn to read.


Lookin’ tired. Lookin’ listless. Needin’ some balls-out fire.
Theories abound as to Obama’s reluctance, inability, outright blindness when it comes to seriously throwing down in F2F encounters. Maybe it’s because he’s an introvert. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t really enjoy that kind of gloves-off, high-pressure combat (unless, apparently, he’s playing basketball with the Secret Service). Maybe it’s because he has no stomach for badass mud-slinging, and is far better suited to calmly thinking through his points before articulating a savage counter offensive that actually contains a semblance of truth.

<snip>


“Barack!” we want to wail. “Look! It’s YouTube! It’s Australia’s fiery prime minister no one in America has ever really heard of, Julia Gillard, effortlessly kicking ass all over her sexist conservative counterpart! And it went viral in, like, 20 seconds flat! Mr. President! That’s how you do it, OK? Look! Please?”

Alas, it might not help. No matter what you make of Obama’s tepid performance, it reminds us of a tragic design flaw those of us on the left have been living with since the impossible glory highs of 2008: this has been, unfortunately, the Obama we’ve always had. Solid, impressive, coolly respectable, articulate to a fault, but not really up for a white-hot, blood-boiling beat-down right when he needs to bring it most.

<snip>

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2012/10/09/why-won%E2%80%99t-obama-step-up/

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Why are people trying to make Obama something he's not?

Yes, Obama should be more aggressive, but haven't you guys thought that maybe this is just the way he is? If you don't like it ... it sucks. But he is who he is and I'm glad he's not pretending to be someone he's not. Democrats in the past have tried that and failed ... just ask Al Gore, who was consumed by his handlers, or Michael Dukakis in '88 when he rode around in that freakin' army tank.

Obama is Obama. He either sinks or swims by being Obama. I think he'll come back and hit Romney ... but I don't anticipate a fiery Obama who's settin' the world on fire. That's just not who he is.

[demgrrrll]

2. True. We project a lot and often want him to be someone he is not. This is farrrr from over.

My Spidey sense tells me that mr mittens has a few more unexpected bumps in the road

[villager]

3. Be great if he were, at least, the Obama from the 2008 campaign

Morford makes note of what his true nature might be like.

doesn't mean that there aren't yearnings for him to rise even taller, more boldly in times of ambient crisis.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. But even that Obama was this Obama. Go watch the debates...

He wasn't aggressive with McCain. He wasn't hard-hitting. He was relaxed and calculating. The difference is that Obama has his record to defend and it's always harder for the incumbent to defend his record. He's going to be the focal point of the debate ... just as the Bush's record was four years ago. That puts him automatically on the defensive and that's never a good place for anyone in a debate. It's why most incumbents don't do as well in debates as challengers (Bush in '04, H.W. Bush in '92, Reagan in '84).

I think Obama will be fine. Maybe he played it too safe. But that won't be a problem next week.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Wow, lots of words. What about that guys who snapped 'you're likeable enough'?

That was something he is. Or was that pretending? Or was it just pure sexism as many said at the time, so he could bite at Hillary but Mitt, he has to nod and bow to? Explain.
What about the man who just recently stood on a stage and deliverd the line 'Now I am the President' with such power. It was a great moment. Was that 'pretending'? It was firey as fuck, it was powerful. It was Barack. Let's see that Barack again.

[The Wielding Truth]

4. How do you argue with crazy. Romney is a sociopathic liar.

Romney: Sociopathic and psychopathic lying

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/02/1116059/-Romney-Sociopathic-and-psychopathic-lying

Everyone knows that Mitt Romney lies. Everybody just takes it as the kind of lying a little boy does when he wants to be captain of the baseball team, or to be elected most popular.
But there is more to it than that, as this article explores.

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." Wikipedia

In my long and illustrious career in the financial markets it has been my misfortune to encounter several psychopathic (or perhaps, sociopathic—we will examine the terms later here) liars. In every instance it left me bruised and bleeding and considerably the poorer in my business affairs. And, though I had considerable studies in psychology in college and thought I knew something about personality traits, I was totally taken unawares, and taken advantage of by these individuals. Worse I thought them valued friends and business associates – at least until the knife was in the back.
The astounding thing was, even when the knife was in the back and I had expressed dismay and resentment the sociopaths denied that they had done anything that was hostile to my interest – or even tried to make me believe that I had agreed to their behavior – or were distressed that I took my business away from them, as though it were somehow unfair for me to retaliate for the damage they had done to me.
And here is the astounding part: They earnestly believed that they had done me no harm. With absolute sincerity and believeability they looked me straight in the face and lied with such skill and persuasiveness that my head spun and I actually questioned my own experience and my own observations. Had I really said that? Had I actually agreed to that? Did we have that meeting and did I imply this or that? Could I have been misinterpreted? Could I trust my own memory?... read more

[demgrrrll]

7. You are right. Part of the issue is that he does so without compunction of any sort, so if you

were debating him and tried to rely on shaming or embarrassing him it would not work, he does not care. He only cares about power over other people and the ends always justify the means. I am trying to think of what would work. People like Romney must win at any cost, so the only way to beat him is never let him win an argument, never let him have the last word but we saw how hard that was. Control. The President must take complete control and not relinquish control during the whole debate, not once. That will frustrate Romney and he will go off the cuff and make an error.

[Summer Hathaway]

6. Blah, blah, blah, etc.

"Lookin’ tired."

Yeah, he probably IS tired. I understand he has this day gig - pays well and comes with fantastic perks, but also requires a lot of heavy lifting in the governing a nation area.

"Lookin’ listless." Not at all. Not even a little bit.

"It’s YouTube! It’s Australia’s fiery prime minister no one in America has ever really heard of, Julia Gillard, effortlessly kicking ass all over her sexist conservative counterpart! And it went viral in, like, 20 seconds flat! Mr. President! That’s how you do it, OK?"

When presidents are elected on the basis of YouTube hits and FaceBook 'likes', that might be a good way to go. It's not out of the question that Twitter could one day replace the Electoral College. But right now, doesn't strike me as a great strategy.

"Solid, impressive, coolly respectable, articulate to a fault, but not really up for a white-hot, blood-boiling beat-down right when he needs to bring it most."

When "he needs to bring it most", he always does - and will. It's the "when he needs to" that's important here. In politics, as in comedy, t-t-t-timing is everything. And to date, Obama's timing in all matters has been flawless.

I'm sorry Morford didn't get the president he seems to have envisioned. I did. Maybe his disillusionment stems from the fact that he wasn't paying attention to who Obama was in the first place, while my satisfaction stems from the fact that I was.

I liked what I saw - a lot.

I still do.

[JNelson6563]

8. Keyboard commandos, like Morford & Co.

always give themselves away.

Julie

[bemildred]

9. Yap yap yap yap. It's like a little puppy peeing on your ankle. nt

[villager]

11. Fascinating. The no-critiques-of-the-President-allowed here is just as telling on Free Republic,

...really.

No one dare have anything but unmitigated praise for the President -- or else!

all criticisms are wrong; you didn't see what you saw; how dare you!, etc. etc.

In fact, Obama did give a tepid performance at the last debate, which reminds too many of us of how "tepid" he's been on critical issues, and at key junctures, during his first administration.

The problem with the first debate is that it reminded too many people of that "tepidity."

And the President needs to bring a much better game to the next one. (And the next term...)

[Summer Hathaway]

14. Really getting tired of the

"you can't say anything critical of the president here" BS. There are OPs full of such criticism all over the board.

If you perceived Obama's debate performance as "tepid", that's your opinion. And you're entitled to express it. Which you just did.

"all criticisms are wrong; you didn't see what you saw; how dare you!, etc."

Exactly the point. If I saw something YOU didn't see, what makes you right and me wrong?

I didn't see a "tepid" performance - nor have I seen a tepid presidency.

[villager]

15. Well, we are certainly free to disagree, of course

But there seems to be a lot of defensiveness when even the mildest critiques of Obama are raised, which makes me wonder how much of a bubble we might be in, here on DU.

And indeed, Obama's first term was much too tepid, given the times we live in.

Here's hoping a second won't be.

[Summer Hathaway]

16. Given all of the accomplishments

of this President thus far (I'm sure you're familiar with The List), characterizing it as "tepid" is, IMHO, quite laughable.

"But there seems to be a lot of defensiveness when even the mildest critiques of Obama are raised ..."

That could be because a lot of the criticism, from mild to harsh, is based on utter BS, or is based on posters' opinions as to how Obama should act, what he should say, what he should do - which is often so disconnected from how things operate in the real world, it is mind-boggling.

[treestar]

18. What was mild about the debate critiques?

And we are Democrats who support Obama. Why would we want to dwell on the negative? We expect it from Rs. Why fight both sides of a battle? It's hard to believe people really want the Democrats to win when they do this.

[treestar]

19. No the point is if we spun things in our favor they way they always do

We might really kick their asses.

Why handicap ourselves? They get to do every dirty trick and we don't, yet we are supposed to win still. Makes no sense.

[yurbud]

12. that Samuel L Jackson video WAKE THE FUCK UP! should have been aimed at Obama

and Democratic politicians not the Democratic base.

We bust a hump and invest time and money in these candidates, and they drop the ball, or more accurately, politely hand it to the Republicans.

[yurbud]

13. I wish I had the time to mashup Jackson answering debate questions

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[treestar]

17. Cannot compare to Julia Gillard

Without having to realize a PM in a Parliament is entirely freer to say a lot of what a US President can't. Australia and the UK conduct things entirely differently.

I liked seeing the Gillard speech, but realized there is no way say Nancy Pelosi could give that here.

There is something about the parliamentary system that makes it different.

Furthermore, you only saw that - Abbott the leader of the opposition may have similar words for her.