Thread: Obama the Educator

There is only one problem. The setting. Whoever made the decision to place the President in the East Room made a tactical error. The speech should have been delivered from behind a cluttered desk in the Oval Office. Try listening to the speech without seeing the President lecturing in a room that always has reminded me of a reception hall in the Winter Palace. It reeks of imperial power. That's great when the President is officially receiving ambassadors and heads of state but terrible in trying to connect with ordinary people. Someone wanted to impress viewers with the power and prestige of the Office of the President, but they would have done better to let focus be on the words spoken by the President.

The speech itself is a masterful defence of President Obama's position, and without that picture, only listening to the words, you have the spirit of FDR's Fireside Chats. Roosevelt was an aristocrat, but he had the ability to make that connection with ordinary people that Obama needs to reforge now.

Here is the response.

These two are frightening. I'm more comfortable seeing them on the golf course where they belong.

These people get so comfortable living luxuriously that they forget able the problems of struggling people. Although there speech writers will include "the struggles of the poor" in nearly all of their speeches, the truth is that even the speech writers have lost touch with the needs of the common folks. The entire setup is a joke, but as many point out: at least the fighting is done in words and therefore no blood is spilling come election time.

These people get so comfortable living luxuriously that they forget able the problems of struggling people.

A slightly confused sentence, but I understand the gist of what you are saying.

However I had understood that one of the ways that Obama made his mark initially was working on a voluntary basis as a lawyer for groups representing just such disenfranchised folk. I may be wrong, this is only my memory from reading about him in English newspapers at the time of his election. If it is so, however, my experience is that such early memories stay with people and colour their whole lives, he might just be genuine, at least to some degree.

Research the political climate he emerged from. It is as foggy as a night in London or Los Angeles. Then, sgain, perfection is as evasive as big foot. Who could cast the first stone anyway? Nobody's Mr. Clean, but give everyone a break and stop pretending to be spotless. Today's politicians, especially in the USA, treat the masses as a mother would treat her children. For some reason, they believe people aren't capable of taking care of themselves. It's insulting.

I believe Obama is genuine, but he is surrounded by people who are not.

My remarks about the setting may seem a very minor point, but to my mind, and I've covered a lot of politicians in a lot of places including Washington, those very minor points often indicate a mind set that is divorced from reality. I'd've had him at his desk, jacket off, tie optional, referring to notes as he talked, instead of portraying him as The Man in his classy suit standing in a room lined with gilded chairs and classical columns. It's a beautiful room. I've been there several times with notebook and pencil, and I've always looked around to see if the Czar was about to appear.

A small detail, perhaps, but a telling one.

I don't know why anyone would refer to Obama's career as 'cloudy'. You can trace it from his days as editor of the Harvard Law Review right through to his election as President. He came to the presidency from the Senate, and out of a nation of over 300 million people, only 100 people at a time sit in the Senate, which makes it a high profile position.

One thing to remember about Obama's history, and this is no small fact, is that he rose to prominance in the state of Illinois, one of the most corrupt and politically in-bred systems in the US. There is good reason that at least three recent govenors of that state have done, or are about to do, jail time.

Our President is a great orator and can seem quite genuine, but his actions have been heavy handed and elitist. Every action he is taking now, from his grandstanding over the debt ceiling, to the Afgan pull-out (a move made against advice from the military, our allies, and the Afgan government [such as it is]) is geared toward his re-election. This coming from a man who said he would do the right thing even if it meant being a one-term president. The sad fact is, I don't see anyone else in a leadership position who is any different.

I was really hoping no one would bring up the Illinois connection.

Originally Posted by garza

I was really hoping no one would bring up the Illinois connection.

Why is that? I think it is pertinant to his credibility.

Can anyone that comes out of Chicago politics be innocent? Then again... do we want anyone that's an innocent Boy Scout in an executive position?

Garza and Terry offer interesting points. I personally like Obama and I certainly don't think he or his wife are evil people. I think at base both are good people as they genuinely understand "good" to be... but I'm sure they both have always been fueled by self interest. Just about all men and women that achieve great rank have been.

And Obama's story - though I'll admit I know little to nothing of the man's biography - is part of the elitist camp. You can't become a U.S. President in modern times unless you graduate from certain universities/colleges, travel in certain circles, and are tapped by certain people of influences and powers that are king makers.

Obama is no Hugo Chavez or Lula story.

But I do like that cat's walk. He has swag.

Originally Posted by garza

There is only one problem. The setting. Whoever made the decision to place the President in the East Room made a tactical error. The speech should have been delivered from behind a cluttered desk in the Oval Office.

One of the media's talking heads made that exact same point, almost verbatim about the desk, except he was referring to John Boehner's less than impressive response and attempt to match the Presidents bully pulpit. In any case, it's the content of these addresses that's important, and Boehner made a number of factual errors. Either he has no concept of macro economics, or, if he does, then he's telling out right lies.

Originally Posted by Terry D

. . . his actions have been . . . elitist.

I don't understand why you think this is a bad thing.

He is the Chief Executive of one of the most powerful nations on earth. I expect him to be elite, in education, intellect, knowledge, and analystical and governing ability.

Now if you mean elitist, as pursuing policy perspectives on behalf of an elite class to the exclusion of all others, that is clearly wrong. One may disagree with the nature and form of his policy initiatives, but their reach and scope have been fairly universal in a way that is benevolent toward the less fortunate.

Originally Posted by alanmt

I don't understand why you think this is a bad thing.

He is the Chief Executive of the most powerful nation on earth. I expect him to be elite, in education, intellect, knowledge, and analystical and governing ability.

Now if you mean elitist, as pursuing policy perspectives on behalf of an elite class to the exclusion of all others, that is clearly wrong. One may disagree with the nature and form of his policy initiatives, but their reach and scope have been fairly universal in a way that is benevolent toward the less fortunate.

It's because so many Americans believe this myth they're in so much trouble now. China and the EU have overtaken you, they just don't try to look like the biggest boy in the schoolyard.

Edited just for you, Captain!