Saturday, November 08, 2008
Small clues
I'm beginning to see a sharper Obama than was on display during the campaign. This is not necessarily a bad thing. During yesterday's press conference he simply refused to answer a question about the intelligence briefing* and made a completely gratuitous and somewhat nasty comment about Nancy Reagan. For which he almost immediately apologized to her.
I remember viewing the original middle finger thing with some skepticism. But after all the reaction to it, he did it again.
I've always told my kids that when they are angry or grieving they have to deal with a fixed quantity of anger or distress - like preservation of mass. They either let it all out at once or it comes out in dribs and drabs. In the crucible of the campaign trail, it apparently comes out in deniable gestures.
But now that the campaign is over and the false personality can be dropped, to some extent, we get to see the the real Obama. I think this President is much more caustic than he lets on. Caustic isn't necessarily bad - it might suggest a bit more...cynicism. Hopefully he'll aim it at the lefty idealists in his cabinet.
* How does the press react to Republicans doing this? It is preferable to 5 minutes of non-answer, I must say.
Labels: Obamenigma
25 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Nov 08, 11:27:00 AM:
It's a marvel that we've elected a politician about whom and whose principles (and principals) we know so little. Inside the beltway GOP'ers wailed yesterday about the appointment of Emanual to chief hatchet wielder, but I think it was interesting as a hint about Obama's intentions toward Congress. He thinks he's in for a fight and hired himself a brawler. What he'll fight for remains to be seen.
By 
Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Nov 08, 12:01:00 PM:
In my lifetime (I first voted in the 1980 elections), I've never seen a presidential candidate that we've elected that we were so unsure about programmatically (for want of a better word).
Sure, Obama is a man of the political left; or more accurately, a man who came from the left. That is, he seems to see no problem (real or exagerrated) that can't be solved or mitigated through state action.
But will he be more cautious because he recognizes the limits of the state? Or because he sees the limits of acting in a political environment where much of the electorate doesn't share his confidence in the state?
Opportunism? Or ideology? Caution? Or sophistication?
The press (yes, bashing is warranted) completely abdicated its responsibility in helping us answer this. Sure, Obama is highly skilled in watching us watch him; but the press's efforts deserve criticism.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 12:12:00 PM:
SMG ... it's going to be interesting indeed. As you suggest, we know very little about him, and the little we do know gave 50-some million of us pause in voting for him. It'll be interesting how he handles 'foreign policy' matters ... I'd be OK with a little F.U. in it, ala Rummy, but would think that should be the position that you leave to underlings, and not carry yourself. Obama might be tough on the hard lefties, or he might not. And he might tough on his 'constituency' if he's actually against the nuttier ideas. It all just remains to be seen.
I hope he governs from the center, recognizing that if he wants to be reelected, he'll need to get things done. And he's got his hands full with a crappy economy (I'll leave it smarter minds to analyze if it's better or worse than what Clinton handed to Bush), and a war. And, if his perceived weakness gets us any new hostilities, abroad, or especially at home, he have little time on his hands to screw much up.
If current events define a presidency, then he's got a tough one coming.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 01:04:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, opening comments:
"I remember viewing the original middle finger thing with some skepticism. But after all the reaction to it, he did it again."
I share your original skepticism. It is precisely because of the reaction to it that I think it unlikely he would repeat it if it were a meaningful gesture. I think it is probably no more meaningful than his use of his forefinger a moment earlier in the video you linked to.
I am inclined to save my criticism, when deserved, to executive acts or legislative proposals with meaningful consequences.
Jim
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 01:45:00 PM:
Obama's primary objective is to destroy the middle class in America!! Everything else is froth. And, just like the Soviets (or National Socialists) he will use labels and language to hide this objective.
Emanuel is a conduit to Obama's Chicago masters and his weapon against those in Congress who fight against kibbutz life in America/
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 02:02:00 PM:
Other than statements Obama made during the campaign (e.g., giving a tax cut to 95% of us), can anyone point to anything Obama has ever said or done that indicates he is not still a man of the left but is instead something of a centrist, a pragmatist, someone who would be inclined to resist the Pelosis, Franks, Feingolds, etc. in Congress? I know he may feel compelled to resist based on practical concerns such as re-election, but what makes anyone think he would not be wholeheartedly in favor of a fairly leftist agenda, such concerns aside?
This is not a rhetorical question; I really would like to know. Maybe I am missing something.
By Andrew Hofer, at
Sat Nov 08, 02:19:00 PM:
Jim, I don't know if Tigerhawk would agree or not, but it is me you quote.
After that second one, I think I am moving over to the deliberate side. I think there is a touch of the adolescent in our new President. Not surprising - I've seen many powerful people behave the same way, although not so much in public.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 02:23:00 PM:
@acu...: He was willing to compromise on drilling if it was part of a larger energy package, and was flamed for "betraying his principles" or somesuch. Also on nukes: he seems willing to have them, as mentioned in his convention speech and position paper, so long as we can solve the storage problem and prevent proliferation of high-level toxic waste. TH has repeatedly mentioned his willingness to be "hawkier than thou" on Afghanistan/Pakistan despite coming from the antiwar side, and he isn't willing to go to the far left side on gay marriage (get govt out of marriage and civil unions for all, or give marriages to everybody). Are you looking for a particular policy area?
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 02:34:00 PM:
Yes the enigma. We all are tempted to speculate. Here are my observations.
1. I don't think Emanual's appointment says much about what they expect in Congressional relations. Chiefs of Staff prime duty is to protect the president from disorder and the clamor for his attention and someone who is blunt and assertive is a good match for a President that wants to stay above the fray and not sweat the details. The Chicago connection is significant because many of his close political associates would know Emanual too so vetting is more reliable.
2. I think the chance that he will govern from the center is zero, at least until the next presidential election season. No need to kid ourselves, Obama is firmly grounded in the far left. Everybody thinks they know who he is, that he shares their hopes and values. Biggest delusion I've ever seen.
3. I've never seen a president more drawn to the symbols of power. You can't ignore that if you want to peel back the cloak on this enigma. Was it just me, or did the rest of you notice the lectern with "Office of the President Elect" sign? There is no such thing and never has been, and yet Obama seemed to think it was important to have this stupid, ridiculous seal in front of him. It's jewelry to him I think. I don't trust leaders who need a lot of jewelry.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 02:54:00 PM:
Lip service.
Watch what he actually does, rather than how he verbally positions himself. Obama is an articulate man, and knows how to skillfully evade when necessary. Good politicians of all types can do this.
An elected realist, even from the political "progressive" end of the spectrum, may DO a lot of things that a progressive-left 'candidate' may not espouse.
F'rinstance, if he is really serious about greenhouse gases and AGW, he might very well embrace nuclear power plants.
And he might get really tough on Pakistan, but not quite for the reasons that past American politicians have. He visited Pakistan as a young man, and remarked how appalled he was at the hierarchal nature of that society.
And from my limited experience, most African-Americans do NOT like gay people and are usually more anti-gay rights than a great spectrum of white people (from left to right). Obama weighed his options and stayed with his base (African-Americans) rather than court gays in California. Of course, that's not how he presented it.
He will be pragmatic when it serves his purposes, but his central ideology will not change (whatever that quite is). Reading biographies of Presidents past, reveals very few that made any kind of profound philosophical journey of discovery while in office. He will be what he is now.
-David
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 03:44:00 PM:
To Mindles H. Dreck
Thanks for correcting my error.
You may be right in your interpretation of the gesture. I hope, for all of us, that you are not.
Jim
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 07:03:00 PM:
Just a quick comment as to Obama "giving the finger" twice in major speeches. I am a small local politician (Mayor) of a small community. I often shake many hands at many events, one thing I learned VERY early was not to touch my face & mouth until I have washed my hands because of germs. I assure you Obama is conscious of where his hands & fingers are at almost all times........no mistakes.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 08:15:00 PM:
I think Obama made a huge error already. Rahm Emanuel is an Israeli Loyalist and Zionist. He volunteered for the Israeli Defense Force during the Gulf War and his Father was a member of Irgun. How can Obama be seen as an honest broker of Peace in the Middle East now?? Arab Publications were quick to react.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 09:14:00 PM:
Eric the Red: Thanks for responding but I was looking for something that was not from the campaign. I think everything you mentioned occured while he was running for president and trying to appear to be a centrist. So I find it all suspect.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 11:46:00 PM:
Obama is like Nixon with symbols of power. It's startling how much alike they are.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 11:56:00 PM:
@acucucuuc: So, from the past 4 days? I don't know that there have been any significant policy proclamations, old or new.
By davod, at
Sun Nov 09, 12:46:00 AM:
The country had a larger problem than how Obama is likely to govern.
With there being only three qualfications for president specified in the constitution*, we have a president-elect who has not provided evidence of his qualifications.
Those questioning this have been ridiculed in the MSM and on the Internet, but the fact is that the US could have a constitutional crisis if it is found that Obama does not meet the minimum qualifications.
Do we really want the Supreme Court to be the decider a second time.
*"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."*
By davod, at
Sun Nov 09, 12:47:00 AM:
PS. first line of my 12:46 comment should reed has instead of had.
By , at
Sun Nov 09, 01:27:00 AM:
@ Davod: Are you serious?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
I think the onus is on the conspiracy theorist to prove the conspiracy.
By , at
Sun Nov 09, 10:03:00 AM:
He's simply referring to the Ohio court case that may (or may not) make it to the Supreme Court on a writ of cert. Somehow I don't see it happening.
By , at
Sun Nov 09, 10:32:00 AM:
Re: the earlier comment, "1. I don't think Emanual's appointment says much about what they expect in Congressional relations."
Of course it does. Gaining control of a Congress is every new President's problem, and choosing the Chair of the DCCC, the guy to whom many new Members owe a debt, as your COS is a clear indication Obama fully understands that fact. I would point your to John Fund, who in a WSJ article from yesterday calls the coming time as "Obama versus Pelosi":
“A likely first assignment for Mr. Emanuel will be reminding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that, after only two years of Democratic control, Congress already has a lower approval rating than even President Bush’s.”
While we're on the subject of this particular post, the second point raised ("I think the chance that he will govern from the center is zero, at least until the next presidential election season.") is just pure speculation. What indication do we have this is true? Any evidence at all, yet? The rumor I've heard, fwiw, is that they've asked Gates to stay on at Defense for at least two years, and CNBC said yesterday that the Obama team is focused on "credibility" with the financial markets in their choice of future Treasury Secretary.
It may be true that Obama may want to govern from the left, and his campaign rhetoric would lead you to think that's true, but circumstances may require him to be a hell of lot more pragmatic.
By , at
Sun Nov 09, 12:40:00 PM:
My personal nightmare about Obama, pre-election, was moments like this one. In the blink of an eye, Obama manages to undermine the security of a close ally, calls into question a key defense strategy before he even learns the facts on missile defense, and impugns the intelligence of a remarkable man. Throwing Grandma or Rev. Wright under the bus is one thing, but throwing Poland is quite another. Should we now add war in Europe to the possible change Obama might bring?
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Nov 10, 10:40:00 AM:
By , at
Mon Nov 10, 11:53:00 AM:
One more clue, and not a good one. The Israelis are going to be getting very nervous about Obama's intentions anyway, and suddenly appointing Robert Malley of all people as a free roaming ambassador will do nothing more than accentuate their concerns. Malley might express, for example, political support for isolating Israel as a means of forcing a two state solution without bickering over the niceties.
The actions a nervous Israel might take can be unpredictable. With their elections set for just one month after Obama takes office one probably should expect Netanyahu will move quickly against Iran.
By , at
Mon Nov 10, 01:53:00 PM:
By the way, how does the Malley trip square with the instructions Anthony Lake issued last week, as reported in Politico?
"Politico.com reported Saturday night that Obama advisers Susan Rice and Tony Lake e-mailed "Obama foreign policy experts" with details on the transition and a warning they should not "under any circumstances speak to the press, any foreign officials, or embassies on behalf of the transition or President-elect Obama."
"We cannot emphasize enough the importance of this request. It would be highly damaging for foreign governments or media to receive information that they believe falsely to represent the views of the president-elect," they wrote in an e-mail dated Nov. 7."
