PDA

View Full Version : Obama 7 Stories Obama Doesn't Want Told


KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 08:36 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091130/pl_politico/29993
Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.

No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money

Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.

Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.

The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.

Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.

Too much Leonard Nimoy

People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”

The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.

Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.

Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.

The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.

That’s the Chicago Way

This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.

It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”

The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode.

The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans.

The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.

He’s a pushover

If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.

It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent.

In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.

He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe

That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist.

Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country — because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.

On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.

His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.

On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.

President Pelosi

No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.

The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude — as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense.

This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.

But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror

No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?

It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.

White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media.

But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.

That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.

Reaper16
11-30-2009, 09:56 AM
That's probably the most well-reasoned and fair article posted here this whole month.

Radar Chief
11-30-2009, 10:08 AM
Hes in love with the man in the mirror


ROFL

Direckshun
11-30-2009, 11:31 AM
I disagree with quite a bit of this article, but I'll just pick out this part for now:

Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 01:00 PM
I believe the "President Pelosi" issue is the most warranted, and ironic.

He deliberately chose Biden to be one heartbeat away as he did not a domineering female personality over his shoulder like Hillary. Instead he has good ole Nancy.

Direckshun
11-30-2009, 01:23 PM
I think it's hilarious that of all the things about Hillary Clinton, coming especially from a conservative who probably hates her guts, that her gender of all things was why Obama didn't want her in the White House.

But hopefully you can explain that particular notion that has me confused, Wolfman, in my prior post.

BucEyedPea
11-30-2009, 01:40 PM
He ain't nothing like Spock. If he were he'd be logical and he'd have cut the govt's budget and spent less, had no stimulus or bailouts. The man is moved by the emotion sympathy and gives the shop away! Honest to gawd!


But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.
And Jeezzazz A. H.!? Wtf is this? The president is supposed to be the weaker branch of the three and this writer has a problem with Pelosi just being an equal? Don't these folks know their civics? Presidents aren't even supposed to craft legislation.

ROYC75
11-30-2009, 01:50 PM
I believe the "President Pelosi" issue is the most warranted, and ironic.

He deliberately chose Biden to be one heartbeat away as he did not a domineering female personality over his shoulder like Hillary. Instead he has good ole Nancy.

That ( Pelosi ) is even scarier than having Palin as POTUS.

mlyonsd
11-30-2009, 02:00 PM
I think the Monopoly Money part is the most accurate.

Deberg_1990
11-30-2009, 02:01 PM
Obama is more in love with himself than even Bill Clinton was.

Direckshun
11-30-2009, 02:50 PM
I still need somebody to explain that part to me.

Because it honestly sounds like vacuous nonsense that sounds good but means nothing.

InChiefsHell
11-30-2009, 04:23 PM
I disagree with quite a bit of this article, but I'll just pick out this part for now:



I have absolutely no idea what this means.

I'm guessing they are saying that he sounds like a robot and not a person. If that's not what they are getting at, I got nothin'...

mlyonsd
11-30-2009, 04:52 PM
I still need somebody to explain that part to me.

Because it honestly sounds like vacuous nonsense that sounds good but means nothing.

He bloviates. On issues he sounds like he knows what he's talking about but in reality it doesn't turn into sound policy.

That's my guess anyway. I had to read it 3 times to come up with that.

ClevelandBronco
11-30-2009, 06:58 PM
I have absolutely no idea what this means.

There's a surprise.

ChiefaRoo
11-30-2009, 08:20 PM
I disagree with quite a bit of this article, but I'll just pick out this part for now:



I have absolutely no idea what this means.

It means he doesn't understand the human impact that his decisions or lack of decisions have on people in this country and around the world.

To put it another way. He doesn't feel their pain.

I haven't posted here much since the election but I've got to say, you really are a mis-guided dumbass.

Chiefshrink
11-30-2009, 08:44 PM
I disagree with quite a bit of this article, but I'll just pick out this part for now:



I have absolutely no idea what this means.

"Policy vs Reality" and what really works!! Case in point: Remember the hammering by the left on Bush I ? "It's the economy, STUPID!!!!

Well we can say the same about Obama i.e. to what grows the economy the best and that is "growing small businesses and cutting taxes", STUPID!!!. This has been tested tried and true since the dawn of the free market in America; that 70-75% of economic growth and job growth come from growing the small business sector, NOT this Keynsian(govt is the answer) bullsh**!! The Keynsian approach is just a cloack for increase of taxes and control(govt regulations) of the people creating more dependency on the govt.

But bottom line: Liberals know what grows the economy and they don't want the economy to grow, they want to destroy "evil capitalism" PERIOD. This is why any jobs created by this so-called stimulus plan will be "GOVT JOBS". Govt doesn't create 'real wealth'.

Liberal Idealogues don't live in the real world. Thus their narcississism grows out of control assuming everyone sees the same world as they do 'never' venturing out from their political and academic bubbles of like minded narcississists who feel and supposedly know a helluva alot more than the "average joe"(you and I) because well you know, they "have the education behind their name"(ala Obama) and especially if you have gone to the upper echelon universities, and of course "they" have all the answers.

However, book knowledge and real world experience rarily mix because for decades we have the majority of colleges that are liberal who are being taught by professors who are in the liberal majority who have been endoctrinated by Keynsian thought with NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE turning out these young liberal idealogues(whether economists or politicians that will have no real world experience as well) who will never know what "free market capitalism" means and how it truly works!!!:rolleyes: How's that "HOPE AND CHANGE" workin for ya????:rolleyes:

Hey Obama! It's growing the small business sector and cutting taxes STUPID!!

Chiefshrink
11-30-2009, 09:06 PM
Obama is the biggest manufactured "piece of dung" I've ever witnessed. And he is NOT as smart as the majority play him off to be. This is part of the 'manufacturing process' creating intelligence that is just NOT there. Hell, he can't even write his own books. Do your research on that one folks!!!!

Chiefshrink
11-30-2009, 09:08 PM
I disagree with quite a bit of this article, but I'll just pick out this part for now:



I have absolutely no idea what this means.

"Policy vs Reality" and what really works!! Case in point: Remember the hammering by the left on Bush I ? "It's the economy, STUPID!!!!

Well we can say the same about Obama i.e. to what grows the economy the best and that is "growing small businesses and cutting taxes", STUPID!!!. This has been tested tried and true since the dawn of the free market in America; that 70-75% of economic growth and job growth come from growing the small business sector, NOT this Keynsian(govt is the answer) bullsh**!! The Keynsian approach is just a cloack for increase of taxes and control(govt regulations) of the people creating more dependency on the govt.

But bottom line: Liberals know what grows the economy and they don't want the economy to grow, they want to destroy "evil capitalism" PERIOD. This is why any jobs created by this so-called stimulus plan will be "GOVT JOBS". Govt doesn't create 'real wealth'.

Liberal Idealogues don't live in the real world. Thus their narcississism grows out of control assuming everyone sees the same world as they do 'never' venturing out from their political and academic bubbles of like minded narcississists who feel and supposedly know a helluva alot more than the "average joe"(you and I) because well you know, they "have the education behind their name"(ala Obama) and especially if you have gone to the upper echelon universities, and of course "they" have all the answers.

However, book knowledge and real world experience rarily mix because for decades we have the majority of colleges that are liberal who are being taught by professors who are in the liberal majority who have been endoctrinated by Keynsian thought with NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE turning out these young liberal idealogues(whether economist or politicians) who will never know what "free market capitalism" means and how it truly works!!!:rolleyes: How's that "HOPE AND CHANGE" workin for ya????:rolleyes:

Hey Obama! It's growing the small business sector and cutting taxes STUPID!!

Chiefshrink
11-30-2009, 09:11 PM
Here is a riddle for ya.

What does Obama and Global Warming(Climate Change-whatever you want to call it:rolleyes:) have in common??????????????????????????


Both are frauds!!!!!:eek::thumb::eek::thumb::eek::thumb:

kcfanXIII
11-30-2009, 09:30 PM
Here is a riddle for ya.

What does Obama and Global Warming(Climate Change-whatever you want to call it:rolleyes:) have in common??????????????????????????


Both are frauds!!!!!:eek::thumb::eek::thumb::eek::thumb:

but the ice caps... al gore said...






















man bear pig.

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 11:35 PM
I think it's hilarious that of all the things about Hillary Clinton, coming especially from a conservative who probably hates her guts, that her gender of all things was why Obama didn't want her in the White House.

But hopefully you can explain that particular notion that has me confused, Wolfman, in my prior post.

Honestly Direkshun, I don't "hate" any politician's guts.

And I don't car wasting my time explaining anything to you.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 11:40 PM
Obama is the biggest manufactured "piece of dung" I've ever witnessed. And he is NOT as smart as the majority play him off to be. This is part of the 'manufacturing process' creating intelligence that is just NOT there.
Yup. The national media, pre-cable, has gone to great lengths to show how dumb the Republicans are all the way back to Gerald Ford. They have to pump up there own if the tear down Ford, Reagan, Dole, Bush I, Bush II, Quayle, etc.

People are finally catching on to their lame game.
Posted via Mobile Device

Guru
11-30-2009, 11:58 PM
I think it's hilarious that of all the things about Hillary Clinton, coming especially from a conservative who probably hates her guts, that her gender of all things was why Obama didn't want her in the White House.

But hopefully you can explain that particular notion that has me confused, Wolfman, in my prior post.Why does Wolfman have to explain it? He didn't write it.

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 01:30 AM
Why does Wolfman have to explain it? He didn't write it.

He has an unnatural need to humiliate anyone who disagrees with him. I don't play his silly ass games.
Posted via Mobile Device

wild1
12-01-2009, 06:53 AM
"Playing with monopoly money" and "he's a pushover" are the two main things we have to be afraid of, I think.

KC native
12-01-2009, 08:32 AM
"Policy vs Reality" and what really works!! Case in point: Remember the hammering by the left on Bush I ? "It's the economy, STUPID!!!!

Well we can say the same about Obama i.e. to what grows the economy the best and that is "growing small businesses and cutting taxes", STUPID!!!. This has been tested tried and true since the dawn of the free market in America; that 70-75% of economic growth and job growth come from growing the small business sector, NOT this Keynsian(govt is the answer) bullsh**!! The Keynsian approach is just a cloack for increase of taxes and control(govt regulations) of the people creating more dependency on the govt.

But bottom line: Liberals know what grows the economy and they don't want the economy to grow, they want to destroy "evil capitalism" PERIOD. This is why any jobs created by this so-called stimulus plan will be "GOVT JOBS". Govt doesn't create 'real wealth'.

Liberal Idealogues don't live in the real world. Thus their narcississism grows out of control assuming everyone sees the same world as they do 'never' venturing out from their political and academic bubbles of like minded narcississists who feel and supposedly know a helluva alot more than the "average joe"(you and I) because well you know, they "have the education behind their name"(ala Obama) and especially if you have gone to the upper echelon universities, and of course "they" have all the answers.

However, book knowledge and real world experience rarily mix because for decades we have the majority of colleges that are liberal who are being taught by professors who are in the liberal majority who have been endoctrinated by Keynsian thought with NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE turning out these young liberal idealogues(whether economist or politicians) who will never know what "free market capitalism" means and how it truly works!!!:rolleyes: How's that "HOPE AND CHANGE" workin for ya????:rolleyes:

Hey Obama! It's growing the small business sector and cutting taxes STUPID!!


ROFL I think this is funny because you have no idea of what our largest Keynesian type spending is.