In her Saturday New York Times column, Maureen Dowd offers her most biting critique of President Obama since his inauguration:
Times have been bad and sad, and The One did not turn out to be a messiah, just a mortal politician who ruefully jokes that his talent is hitting the “sweet spot” where he makes no one happy, neither allies nor opponents.
I had expected such a lamentation to be followed immediately by a broadside against the Right; perhaps with the typical Reid-esque charges of obstructionism, or cynicism, or “politics,” or anything that implies that culpability lies outside of the West Wing. Instead, she trains her fire on the president and keeps it steadily there. The thrust of Dowd’s argument is that the president feels “disappointed” by us. An “introvert,” he shares Jimmy Carter’s incredulity that our boisterous democracy does not bend happily to his definition of the rational. And so, hurt by America’s failure to appreciate his brilliance, he and Michelle have become physically and emotionally reclusive, preferring the company of a small clique of friends that recognize his gifts:
The portrait of the first couple in Jodi Kantor’s new book, “The Obamas,” bristles with aggrievement and the rational president’s disdain for the irrational nature of politics, the press and Republicans. Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated.
We disappointed them.
“Who knew, in the exuberance of 2008,” Dowd asks, “that America was electing an introvert?” The temptation, as scales fall from eyes, is to say, “I told you so.” It would certainly be a pleasure to perform this service for Maureen Dowd as she falls out of the procession of acolytes (at least, until the general election in November). But even for those of us who never bought Obama’s shtick, and who do not believe in either the Coming of the Age of Aquarius or that any president could “turn out to be a Messiah,” there has been much about this administration that has surprised.
I did not expect him to be an “introvert,” either. Nor did I expect the man to be such a terrible politician. Instead, I presumed that Obama would be an intelligent technocrat with a well-oiled and competent White House, and that he would be able to use his oratorical ability to his advantage. I fully expected that I would oppose what he would try and achieve — and I do — but I didn’t expect to be embarrassed watching him attempt it. As it happens, the Obama White House is a mess, the president largely shies away from detail — leaving it to the very Congress he blames for his ills — and his speeches tend to hurt any policy he is trying to advance. And he seems incapable of considering his own role in all of this. Maureen Dowd may be more disappointed than us on the Right by the way things have turned out, but is she more surprised? I doubt it.
The rest here.
Re. Maureen Dowd:
It is winter and the pretty bird has indeed flown the coop:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaureen, this is not about you, it is about Obama. He is the political failure, his are the policies that like lightning rods draw protest against him and his administration. His are the political appointees who follow the Chicago way of corruption, selecting favorite sycophants to fund with public monies or waive from regulations for campaign funds, while denying the entrepreneur a fingerhold on the competitive cliff and denying the unfavored nonsupporters so much as a fair hearing before regulators.
It isn't you who walks guns to the Zeta cartel. It isn't you who gives >80% of Obamacare waivers to the union supporters of Obama. It isn't you who bows before foreign potentates on an apology tour.
It isn't you, Maureen. It is him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm surprised that someone who would be drawn to Dowd's column would not have known that Obama is an introvert. He is so clearly an introvert. Of the cold fish sort. That is why the teleprompters. He acts his oratory. He is not a natural. He fakes his interpersonal interaction. He lies about having been a Cubs fan. He does not have an extravert's inherent and default faith that he is OK just as he is. He has to stage himself in Ionic columns. He has to prepare his words in advance and read them from the little glass screens -- every single time. He hems and haws and struggles to connect with the audience if the teleprompter fails or if the operator screws up the text or the pacing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's not a Cubs fan, he's a White Sox fan. He proves this by rhapsodizing about his days at "Kaminsky Park."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[Obama] is so clearly an introvert. Of the cold fish sort. That is why the teleprompters."
Reagan used teleprompters ALL THE TIME. Was he also a "cold fish?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I presumed that Obama would be an intelligent technocrat with a well-oiled and competent White House"
But why did you presume this?
Some of us noticed back in 2008 that he'd never run an organization larger than a Senate office and had no legislative achievements, and thus had shown no evidence of any managerial or political competence. We pointed out that there was no reason whatsoever to expect him to be able to manage the basic tasks of the Presidency. Why didn't you listen to us?
The delusion that any bright individual can do the job of the Presidency and the only thing that matters is that he have the right ideology is a particularly dangerous one. You need to examine yourself and figure out how you fell into it; it indicates a serious error in your reasoning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there is anything I am thankful for over the last three years, it is that the president is such a poor implementer on his radical agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I presumed that Obama would be an intelligent technocrat with a well-oiled and competent White House"
Based on what? The man's intelligence was always vastly overrated, and he has no record whatsoever of any executive management ability or legislative skill. Any person willing to look beneath the shallow rhetoric that no one seems to be able to quote - and that has never persuaded anyone to vote differently on any issue - would have seen a forest of red flags:
- a supposed legal scholar who's never published a single article or done any research, not even when he was editor of a law review;
- a failed law firm associate who never billed over 1300 hours per year and whose biggest client was a certain outfit called ACORN;
- a legislative record marked by absences, punting on major issues, and zero evidence of leadership or major bills passed;
- lack of demonstrated expertise in any field, neither in economics nor foreign policy or even healthcare and other social policies...
The man is a lightweight narcissist and first-class BS artist. Shame on this country for buying his cant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Instead, I presumed that Obama would be an intelligent technocrat with a well-oiled and competent White House, and that he would be able to use his oratorical ability to his advantage."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure why you would have - he had *nothing* to his credit, except winning elections. He hadn't even had any legislative victories to tout. Oh, and he didn't win most of those elections on the basis of his oratory, he won them to a great extent by eliminating his opponents from the race.