Blogs and Stories
Obama's Fog of War
by Tina Brown
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo
As Hillary and Gates fan out to explain what Obama really meant the other night, it's becoming clear that the "Great Communicator's" skills are breaking down.
It’s a strange paradox for a great wordsmith, but whenever Obama makes an important policy speech these days he leaves everyone totally confused. His first health-care press conference back in July triggered a season of raucous political Rorschach and left his hopeful followers utterly baffled about what they were being asked to support. Now White House envoys are being dispatched all over the globe to explain what the president really meant about the date when troops will or won’t be pulled out of Afghanistan. Hillary, you go to the Hill! Take Gates and Adm. Mullen with you. Holbrooke, off to Brussels! And you, Gen. Petraeus, you go on 360 and hit Anderson Cooper with jargony dog whistle caveats like “the pace of the drawdown is conditions-based.”
I have come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn’t really believe a word that he is saying.
• More Daily Beast contributors on Obama’s speech Does Obama create confusion on purpose? Is this his “process” based on his confession that he’s a screen onto which people project things? Is it a strategy so that whatever bill trickles out of Congress or however many soldiers linger in Afghanistan, he can claim that the outcome is what he meant it all along? (Clinton and Gates assured nervous senators on the Hill Thursday that the August 2011 deadline was both firm and flexible, and that this position was, in Gates’ words, “not contradictory” in the least.) Or is it that for all the administration’s vaunted mastery of multiplatform communication, Rahm and Gibbs and company are actually amateurs at crafting a clear political message and launching it on the dazed American public?
Or is it that there is so much subtext to every part of this message that the simple heads of the electorate are just not pointy enough to comprehend it?
I have come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn’t really believe a word that he is saying. He couldn’t convey that health-care reform would be somehow cost-free because he knows it won’t be. And he can’t adequately convey either the imperatives or the military strategy of the war in Afghanistan because he doesn’t really believe in it either. He feels colonized by mistakes of the past. He feels trapped by the hand that has been dealt him.
Obama all but held his nose as he delivered those words—“bring this war to a successful conclusion”—and never once mentioned the word “win.” The only authentic moment at West Point was the history lesson he gave us at the start. As he spoke, you realized how long ago it was that we entered Afghanistan. How much blood has been shed since then. How futile it is to try to press the reset button and play this war game now as it would have been at the start, when we were hot on bin Laden’s trail in Tora Bora. For a moment, as Obama told us of the first attack on the Taliban and NATO’s invocation of Article 5, I felt I was being told some Nordic myth from ancient times: Four score years ago and ten, fiery planes set out for the prosperous, peace-loving climes of the United States of America! And then, there was war. There was much war, and it was covered in a great fog, and it lasted unto eternity.
Is it any wonder Obama would prefer to let us stay confused?
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times bestseller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
The Obama Gang Can't Shoot Straight
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
More Ugliness From Mel Gibson
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
The Salesman Obama Needs
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
dooreen
I don't think it matters that Obama isn't communicating eloquently through the fog of the Afghan war effort... Everyone appears to be reading about Tiger's new alleged Prenup agreement.
Timstigator
It appears the MSM is doing the Tiger story non-stop on purpose. They faithfully obey orders.
midwestpundit
Tina -- Don't we call someone who repeatedly makes statements he doesn't believe a....liar? The pattern here is becoming very very long and consistent.
blogmantom
No, that's the neo-con definition of liar. The rest of us still believe in this thing called truth and use the traditional definition: a liar is someone who doesn't tell the truth (in other words, just believing in WMDs doesn't make them real...they have to actually exist.)
cbl99201
Tina, how brave of you to admit to your confusion. I suggest that you see a therapist right away to help resolve it.
sophia5
( " it's becoming clear that the " Great Communicator's " skills are breaking down. " )
Disagree that his communications skills " are breaking down. "
This man seems to know exactly what he is saying in a very
methodical way, perhaps using "foggy" rhetoric
on purpose, for distraction ?
Perhaps the specific withdrawal time was deliberate
as a way to recoup any possible left-wing defections
in time for the next election,
while at the same time appeasing the pro-surge element,
giving Obama a certain amount of " wiggle " room ?
Maybe The Obama " Transparency " is quite clear through all the " FOG ? "
MDel066
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH SOPHIA5 TO A POINT. I believe it actually is deeper than that. I think he makes confusing statements because he deliberately means to keep the American people in the dark. His entire admin is bent on their own agenda. I also believe that his abilities are highly overrated. Does he acturally write his own speeches? I don't think so. He can't make a speech without a telepromptor, and he can't very well anwer questions that haven't been scripted.
Scooch
Tina, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a firm believer in the fact that Obama wowed voters with his oratory skills; now that they seem to be failing him, people will see what he really is: an inexperienced politician who's goal is to be re-elected, not promote change.
As I recall, one of Obama's big campaign promises was to remove all troops from the Middle East by a specific date. Still before then, when serving as a senator, he proposed a bill to remove troops by March of 2008. However, he's now sending more troops to Afghanistan. Maybe he's learned a little something since he took office that the public doesn't know. Newsflash: the government keeps secrets. Ever stop to think that our military leaders might know a little bit more about the situation than Joe Liberal sitting in a coffee shop?
As for setting a deadline for troop removal, possibly the worst idea I've heard from this administration. What does that say to insurgents? "Oh, they'll be gone by August 2010? Time for a vacation, fellas!" Rule #1 of warfare: you don't tell the enemy what you're going to do. You don't give them the blueprints to your base and you don't send them a schedule of your planned attacks.
It seems like many people have forgotten why we're in Afghanistan in the first place. 9/11, anyone? After Pearl Harbor, we knew our enemies were strong and we would lose our men if we confronted them, but did that stop us? Nope, we recognized the mission and went for it.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
ChanRobt
No American president who wanted to keep the Congress in the mid-term and win a second term for himself, could have retreated from Afghanistan.
All the critics speak as if 9/11 never happened. And never say how they would have responded to the events of that day if they had been the president.
Almost every island we landed on in the Pacific from 1942 through 1945 put us in a bloodier, more desperate fight than has Afghanistan to date.
You are right, Tina, that if Obama doesn't have his heart and gut in this, his failure of leadership will lose it for us.
ectoendomezo
Sorry..Chanbot..but..ummm...Afghanistan...for ANY INVADER...is LOST..the day they set foot on the ground...
The Ivans..were conducting..ACTUAL...as in not..NOT..."Mere Smoke Of Opinion"..but ACTUAL..."ETHNIC CLEANSING"...wiping out..EVERYONE...well..we not only..CAN'T do that..but if we ever DO..than I for one..WIL CEASE to lend my 'Financial Support' in the form of paying of taxes.
Bottom line...There IS no 'Winning" in Trashcanistan..NONE! It doesn't matter if its Obama..or....jeezis..CHENEY...they CANNOT.."WIN"..it is NOT..POSSIBLE!
They love to use the word 'Surge'..for a REASON Folks! BECAUSE 'WE ARE SENDING 30,000 REINFORCEMENTS' sounds like a Lost Cause...
Nope! There will NEVER..be a 'U.S. Victory'..in Afghanistan!..NEVER! Because ALONG WITH..the simple BASIC realities..there is ALSO..the little "Issue" of..."HAVING AN ACTUAL REASON FOR WHY WE ARE THERE!" because it HELPS to HAVE ONE!
And..We DON'T!
"ASK ANYONE"! Sure..ask anyone 'WHY" are we in Afghanistan?
The DUMB answer is almost ALWAY'S 'The War On Terror' said in a monotone voice of the hypnotized..tired...beaten down..."citizen"...
But thats ridiculous...literally...ridiculous! Nope! 'WE" are killing those people for OTHER REASONS..and as long as this Moral Ambiguity is the SOP of this nightmare...and as long as ther is..IN FACT..absolutely no REAL 'Moral High Ground" as there ABSOLUTELY WAS IN WWII..we cannot..and WILL NOT.."WIN"
Here is a SUGGESTION! look up the words.."RETAIL" and "WHOLESALE"..and hen APPLY them to the "DEATH OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS"..and then...if you can STILL.."justify" your obvious "Rah-rah" mentality..well..then yuo fall into the category of..."Just Angry" and IGNORING ALL EVIDENCE...in which case...why bother...
Again.."WE" are the perpetrators of "WHOLESALE" killing..WE ARE! there is NO justification for the continued "WAR"..not in the form they are FEEDING us..nope! This is about OIL..the Trans-Siberian pipeline...this is about having a 'Sword" into China..and Russia...this is about PARKING..our GIANT...PETROLEUM DEPENDANT MERCENARY ARMY...right..on..top...of the ONLY thing..and pretty soon..the ACTUAL only "resource" necessary...to KILL those that do not GO ALONG with the US GOVCORP SUBLIMINAL FASCISM! ................ OIL!
Wake Up! This is NOT about 'Terrorism'..its about POWER!
ChucklehutCynic
ECTO:
You're tin foil hat is tilted left.
You know that right?
b2brian
Not ONE person read YOUR post because IT was quite LONG winded and BORING
bobj72
"ecto"; You have well articulated your perception with a good degree of brevity - I might add! You offer an intelligent perception that's much more fact than fiction. Thanks.
lysimachos1
Nobody ever wins in Afghanistan? Hmmm, Alexander and his decendants held and ruled it for 300 years until they were invaded by the Scythians. Doesn't that count?
JTMasolo
What part of "We will begin to withdraw our troops in August 2011 at a pace determined by conditions on the ground" do you not understand? I understand how this might "confuse" Republicans in Congress. Ten percent of them will twist themselves into pretzels just to find something to slam the President for and the rest are just plain stupid. But then again, Ms. Brown, the Beast must be fed, and you can't get invited on Morning Joe to opine about your own article unless there's an article to opine on. The joke's on all of us who take you vaudevillians seriously enough to comment on what you write. We're no different from those people who call phone numbers they hear in movies expecting some movie star to pick up.
crymeariver
Co-sign.
The only people who didn't understand that speech are non-English speakers and people who profit from non-issues. The Republican congress understood it enough to disagree with that SPECIFIC part of his policy prescription.
RichardCranium
Hear hear
keepakeeper43
Co-Sign.
Its also amazing, Tina, that you omit that Omama has been saying for THREE YEARS that we've been in Bush's SCAPEGOAT war in Iraq for years.
- That Iraq had no connection to 9/11.
- That the perpetrators (BinLaden,etal.)fled to Afganistan.
-That he campaigned on getting out of Iraq and sending troops to
Afganistan since day one.
What is confusing you ?
Where have you been?
sonofloud
If Obama truly believed that then why would you increase troops before claiming that you are going to leave?
That is like being in a casino and saying you have to leave because you are losing money but then stopping at every table on your way out the door.
PhilMcRoin
son,
no it's not.
It's like sending more troops in to achieve a specific goal by a projected date.
tstar3
Co Triple Sign, this has got to be dumbest thing I have ever heard...when someone says conditions on the ground it means I INTEND TO Based on the conditions on the ground..if 1 troop comes home or a million IT WILL BE BASED ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND...woe, is me, Tina has joined the Beltway Bobbleheads...I'm suprised there is no Desiree Rogers from Ms. Brown...Having Tina talk about foreign policy is like having Meghan McCain talk about foreign policy...it sounds better with the sound turned off
unsuiatlarge
Co-sign. The arguments against the president seem thin on support and long on assumptions.
Critics write things like, "And he can't adequately convey either the imperatives or the military strategy of the war in Afghanistan because he doesn't really believe in it either".
Ms Brown presumes to know what the president thinks....I think that's a stretch.
This user is no longer registered.
Rafter
And I would imagine Obama's "paying your electric bill" at your house as well. Jeeesh!!!
This user is no longer registered.
RichardCranium
Same here Connie
bobj72
"connie47"; You remain "on top of your game!"
SFGiants
I hate to say it, but I think you nailed it, connie.
crypto
C'MON JT. Nobody has to twist any of this. Much of it is done by the speech writers on purpose. Obama cannot/will not pin himself down to the point that he can't wriggle free or blame it on someone..Don't go political here. Just back up and look at what he has done up until now. "we're gonna have open government",' we're gonna create 1,000,000 jobs,' ''we're gonna bail out everybody who is too big to fail,' We're gonna open up these coal mines", We're gonna close gitmo", and this ME stuff. "My administration, everybody is welcome ar my whitehouse, Acorn and SEIU will have a seat at the table My Airforce One," and it just goes on. The republicans take the most heat over it but the democrats see what's going on here as well.
sonofloud
Just like Obama said he would close Quantanamo in December then changed it to "some time in the next year".
And when August 2011 rolls around the "conditions on the ground" won't permit it so the troops will have to stay longer.
It is called critical thinking and not blindly believeing what your told.
tstar3
Excuse me artad, what part of jan 20 08 after a yr...meaning jan 20 09 didn't you understand...and cry me a river is him not making the deadline a bigger deal than Gitmo being closed...You should take note of this indian proverb..if you cant improve on the silence then STFU
unsuiatlarge
"And when August 2011 rolls around the "conditions on the ground" won't permit it so the troops will have to stay longer".
Another fortune teller. It must be nice to have this much confidence in your huge intellect. Shouldn't you get in touch with the WH and make your genius available to them? I'm sure you have considered many options in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the president has not thought of himself. Him being an idiot and all.
This user is no longer registered.
PhilMcRoin
why not ask your question now?
Why are we sending so many troops to Afghanistan to fight a handful of Taliban when this war was supposed to be against "terrorism" or al qaeda?
or how about this one:
Why haven't we learned from our failed "war on drugs" that you cannot wage conventional war against anything but another nation? Afghanistan most closely fits the bill so we fight them.
This user is no longer registered.
PhilMcRoin
right,
and I was making a point that seeing this through to a successful conclusion is a pretty elusive thing, and something that will take a completely different direction to obtain. We are, afterall, not at war with Afghanistan as we lay waste to their lands and people while our enemies remain largely undefined or identified and move across borders from country to country as they please.
This user is no longer registered.
Rafter
So...to this reader...being "invited onto Morning Joe to opine is considered the flagship of serious discussion?!?!" You must live in MSNBC. Try the remote (it's that thing next to the TV with buttons on it). You may be amazed.
cate508
Well said. Tina, I don't get YOUR argument, frankly.... Obama has and continues to make perfect sense to many of us.
Timbo52
JTMasolo: I find it hard to believe that you give your opinion, attack republicans, then attack the author and then basically say that the joke's on the people that respond. So let me "respond" to "your comments".
I'll tell you "what part" a lot of sane thinking people don't understand about the withdraw date. For one thing it is obvious that it is just a play to make the libs feel good about getting out of this "necessary war" as Obama stated on the campaign trail.
Secondly why in the world would you give a time table for withdraw before you have any idea of what the results will be? It does undermine our position with the enemy and the locals. Could he not have said he would review progress quarterly and then determine a time table for withdraw? It was simply political pandering.
Please don't respond or the joke's on you!!
Morgan378
"Secondly why in the world would you give a time table for withdraw before you have any idea of what the results will be? It does undermine our position with the enemy and the locals."----------The reason he gave a time to withdraw is that he wanted the Karzai government to get the idea that they better straighten up and do what they need to do - NOW and without DELAY. I* there isn't a government *or the A*ghans to back - no one will *ight *or them. It's already enough they don't use last names, don't know what day it is on the calendar, can't tell you how old they are and can't read. I think it's going to take longer than 2011 to come about to a "success*ul conclusion" to this war - however, it was more important to tell the World what we were going to do to put a *ire under the A*ghanis to get us out o* there.
xlntcat
Very well stated. But Tina will stop at nothing to undermine the president and promote old Hillary.
EveJan
I think the news media like that the Obama is confusing in his retoric. Because that way they can explain to us what he said. That is the reason rhey did not like George Bush. We all knew what he said.
ChanRobt
Meanwhile, recall the Romans fought the Barbarians for centuries. A millennia really.
We are likely fated to have to do the same.
manifestogr
The Barbarians fighting the Barbarians
I see no end ...
sonofloud
The Afghans outlasted the British, then the Soviet Union......guess who's next?
ImNoPUNK
My Dear Ms Tina Brown..
I think you're strictly enamored of Obama: hindering your ability to see him for the ineffective leader he is. Organizational talents are soon meaningless if a CEO is devoid of knowledge necessary to implement policy. After 3 months Obama welcomed clover, much to the consternation of the public. Americans will not tolerate being played for time while so much is at stake.
Chuckv
Your comment that Obama is "devoid of knowledge" is breathtaking. He just spent three months becoming fully informed on Afghanistan. He has highly competent generals in charge of the war to advise him. Are you suggesting that he lacks the mental equipment to be commander in chief? Of course he does not have the mental equipment of his immediate predecessor, but then who does?
ImNoPUNK
Hey Chuckv....
You're damn right I said he doesn't have the knowledge..... Real knowledge is proportionate to real experience, there is no substitution. Every cook is not a chef, no matter how many classes he takes at the French Culinary Institute. Yes it's grande how many generals are advising POTUS, but if he intuitively doesn't have what it takes to decide what to do next then it won't matter what he's been schooled at or by whom.
I know for your side reality does come as a surprise, but do catch your breath.... then go back and read again what I said, this time slower and "word for word". If you don't read in to it what you think I'm saying, you'll be able to walk away with what I did.
PhilMcRoin
he needs to out decide the decider..
Punk,
you are amazing.. you should have your own talk show. You'd make a great pud-nit. Your skills at doing and being exactly what you accuse the other side of are right up there with the rest of the neo-con puds.. great work..
ImNoPUNK
Hey PhilMcRain...
Open your eyes man. The continuous propping up of Obama during his political career is exactly why he ain't got what it takes now. It can't be ignored any more how his not knowing what to do next has always been pervasive and entrenched throughout his career in politics. The first day in the Illinois State Senate he was instantly given 26 bills to bring to the floor that a) he never authored.. and b) had no real knowledge of. Hell, he never lifted a pen to a one of them prior to the 1st floor vote. A more recent case in point, is the "jobs summit" followed by a "national jobs questioning tour". To paraphrase Obama from yesterday, "If we in Washington have done anything to hinder you from operating as business people, then I wanna know"....... Come on... He has to ask??
This guy didn't want to be bothered with the military. Listen to him when he speaks, he couldn't sell an approved extended leave to a war weary trooper.
Now hold on to your seats, cause I'm about to rock the boat big time, here comes the real Piste de Resistance... Do you remember how Obama, while still a US Senator, was so against the Bush surge planned for Iraq that he voted against it? Well prest-o change-o, now as Commander In Chief he's done a 180 degree metamorphisis on policy by co-opting a twin-like version of the very strategy he voted against 2 years prior..... Obama has vindicated "W"..... I'm laughing so much it's hard to contain myself....How's that grab all of you ???
ImNoPUNK
Before I get nailed by a member of TDB grammar patrol.... here's the letter "o" needed to correct my typo in in metamorphosis. ( I guess auto spell check doesn't always work here on TDB).
PhilMcRoin
like I said.. you should have your own show..
good one about the "o" you'd of been nailed to the wall if you didn't catch it yourself..
Where do you get the idea that I am not aware of the fact that Obama is a politician? Do you have this much disdain for all of them? Because it's pretty much par for the course that they are far from perfect, and in most cases foul horrible unscrupulous people.. Don't be so picky.. they're all just as ripe. and seeing as how they live their lives under the public eye and everything they do is a matter of public record.. well you can pretty much pick and choose situations that they have been in and tell whatever story you want.. lucky for you neo-cons, you have a network of media outlets and pud-nits to do it for you.. no need to worry about forming your own opinions or thoughts..
ImNoPUNK
Hey PhilMcRoin....
You need to step back sucker, cause I'm far from being a "neocon". With the ease you scurry the term about, it's clear you have newly discovered the tag or ya don't understand it's true meaning.... maybe even both.
For the record, my political alignment wasn't forged after an exodus from the dank and bigoted catacombs of liberalism. It's also worth mentioning I have never been comfortable with the idea of a welfare state.... such social tenets are anathema to me.
I was taken aback some by your last comment, but rest assured there's no need to wonder why I've come to believe you know less than the average joe. You're typical of your breed.
As a conservative, I've noticed an increasingly pugnacious demeanor of liberal politicians and their sycophants this time around. Like always, this time you'll never be more than a short lived annoyance, as I doubt your ilk will ever have much to add by way of enhancing the political discourse.
RichardCranium
What are you talking about Tina?
Its completely absurd to think any President could provide every detail to any policy in a speech. I would like your next "story" to please give past examples of Presidents who adequately addressed monumental policy decisions in a speech that required no further discussion, dialogue or clarification on anything.
Your imaginary assumptions that President Obama has tried to present healthcare as "cost free" and your adolescent outrage over the fact that he didn't say the word "win" is comedic relief to TDB readers who really appreciate all of the honest, good faithed contributions you have made to address our national issues.
Maybe the Presidents ability to communicate is not the problem here. It is possible you just have difficulty listening when there is more than one side to an issue.
rogersnowden
He explicitly told us his health care plan would reduce costs and we would pay "not one dime" more in taxes.
You know, all the waste and fraud he would clean up, but only after passing his magic plan?
When a president makes a war speech, he absolutely must be forceful, direct and positive. Obama completely failed in this regard.
Obama, despite the MSM propaganda, is actually a *terrible* communicator. He reads well, from a teleprompter. But his extemporaneous efforts have been almost all disasters.
It is truly hard to convince people of something you yourself do not believe.
And it is not anyone else's inability to listen, it is more the fanatics' tendency to hear what they want to hear.
tstar3
Giving you a thorough takedown of this asine is like trying to get a rock to talk
RichardCranium
So we agree that Obama did not try to sell healthcare as "cost free", he said "reduce costs" and "not a dime to the deficit".
I am amazed at your insight into what a man feels. Senator Obama ran as an advocate of a increased Afghanistan presence. A large portion of his base currently doesn't seem to support his view, and yet the President has decided the risk is still eminent and we must push forward. Why would he make this decision if he didn't believe in it? It wasn't to gain support from the current conservative party who bash his every decision ad hoc.
Constructive criticism is healthy, but when a political viewpoint cannot find a single positive attribute, decision, policy or any middle ground after a year! Logic tells me its not just the messages being sent out, it may be the listeners failure to hear clearly.
unsuiatlarge
RichardCranium:Exactly!!!
BigVoo
That's just it with this president. He freaking never gives details about anything. When you always take a 10,000ft view of things, it's much easier to sound like a genius. The detail are always what sinks him because the details suck. If he were to actually go into any detail of his bogus health care reform or his bogus cap and trade hoax or immigration etc., people would see it's all basically a steaming pile.
djmelfi
Obama is doing what he always has done, that's why he voted present 130 times in Illinois. He is doing someone's bidding and the puppet masters can tell him what to say but they cant put conviction in his heart. His real calling is to be a standup comic, as in his "GRAB A MOP" speech where he entertained the citizens with his comedy lines and even did a little soft shoe.
He is an academic and has only learned concepts about this country, he has no in-bred convictions about this country. Why should he? He was raised by communists and Muslims and his childhood was not here. I wonder how old he was before he heard his first pledge to allegiance, he still isnt sure how many states there are or what religion is in this country.
tomfarr
I must with some reluctance express my respect for Tina, who up to now has shown the almost superstitious adoration of Obama that is routine for a New York Liberal. She is allowing the scales to fall from her eyes, which must be a very painful process. I listened this morning to Obama addressing a group of Community College students in Allentown, and heard the same high-sounding rhetoric, the same over-simplifications, the same extravagant promises that he uttered during the campaign. The vapidness and fatuity of it must be as obvious to Tina as it is to me, and she is painfully coming to realize that she has been worshiping a false idol.
ChanRobt
JTMasolo writes, "What part of "We will begin to withdraw our troops in August 2011 at a pace determined by conditions on the ground"
Let's try it another way, JTM, what war was ever in history won with the ringing opening refrain, "We will begin withdrawing a year after we arrive"?
It's patently absurd.
As Krauthammer so well puts it in his column today, "Uncertain Trumpet": "Success in war" requires "...the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief."
The will to prevail was hardly personified by this president making this speech.
boredwell
I suspect that the president has been succumbing to "weltschmerz" upended by the understanding that physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind. He's lost the hale hardy fellow persona that carried him through the rigors of the election but has not served him as well during his year in office. And though he continues to delivers sonorous messages he does so in an increasingly automaton fashion, tight-lipped with stiff back. Certainly, the pressures of state, including the conundrum that is Afghanistan, have conspired to diminish his spirits. I believe he personally would have chosen for us to bow out of that quagmire now with, perhaps, some requisite PR spin to doctor the motives for our withdrawal. From the health care initiative to cap-and-trade, from unemployment to Afghanistan, he seems to be playing hopscotch: he doesn't have his heart in these stop-then-go endeavors. Worst, I feel he is trying to appease most of the people without alienating all of them. The president might reconsider wonking his approach to policy put his fist down every now and then. He needs to put his imprimatur on his administration. Now.
jsacouto
I have come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn't really believe a word that he is saying.
You are 100%. There is no emotion in his speach.
johnstafford
=Trenchant and perceptive, if a bit scary.
Perhaps what President Obama needs to learn is that, sometimes, "leadership" means taking a chance, throwing caution to the winds.
=I could so much more easily accept the president's "split-the-difference" strategy on Afghanistan, for example, if he were more stalwart in fighting for health care reform (i.e., a real "public option"); or, vice-versa. But, as Tina points out, everything this guy does seems to reflect an almost preternatural reluctance to "go for broke."
Margot62
Tina, Tina, Tina.
You write, "He feels trapped by the hand that has been dealt him."
You're right. Every president must deal with the economic, political and cultural conditions he walks into on his first day in office. But that's what DEFINES a president, my dear.
What's sad is that no matter what Obama does or doesn't do, it will always be Bush's fault. Will he ever stand on his own merit? If he succeeds, he will get the credit for "transcending Bush," and if he fails, it will be said he couldn't get past the "hand that was dealt to him."
Obama, just like any other new president, must face the inheritance bestowed to him and stand in the light of his own presidency. Bush can be your scapegoat for now, but history will judge Obama on the sort of man he was, what he accomplished during his time in the White House, and how he defined the times we are living through now.
PBHEAD
Tina,
So glad you have come to the realization that Mr Obama is just out of his depth. His speeches are emotionless and certainly not the kind to encourage our troops into battle. Think of Churchill, Roosevelt, they were leaders.
The man is just simply over his head.
MasturbatinPete
"I have come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn't really believe a word that he is saying."
Alternative theory: Obama has never been a "gifted communicator" when it came to explaining details. It was all "hope," "change," "yes we can," and gauzy platitudes, delivered in a rich baritone and a tempered preacher-man voice.
neverlate
Obama was never a great communicator, what he always has been is a great equivacator - The elite media somehow saw this as a sign of tremendous intelligence. Obama is essentially an academic who has gone with the flow his whole political career, now that he is out in front he is incredibly uncomfortable - see his handover of the government to the idiot twins - Reid and Pelosi.
bjohnson
Academic
The problem!
Obama is not street wise or business savvy and unfortunately the rest of his staff seem to be of the same background. He has never defined a vision or a cohesive long term plan for the country. To be a leader you need a road map to show everyone where you / we are headed. It is not to late to put one together but who's going to show him how to do it?
Thanks Tina for the thought provoking vision.
MasturbatinPete
"And [Obama] can't adequately convey either the imperatives or the military strategy of the war in Afghanistan because he doesn't really believe in it either."
Correct. The left never actually believed the rhetoric about Afghanistan being the "good war." Emphasizing Afghanistan was always just a tactic to bash Bush on Iraq without revealing that they were completely anti-war. Obama's promise to escalate in Afghanistan was a cynical ploy to convince moderate voters that he wasn't a wimp. He didn't actually believe the fight in Afghanistan was worthwhile, and he was right. But now he's boxed himself in with his tough-guy rhetoric from the campaign, and a small, sort escalation is his only hope to protect his party in 2010 and himself in 2012.
tlodge9
It's not that Obama has lost this communication skills, it's his opponents want to act stupid, and his supporters only want to hear good things, so they don't listen. "conditions on the ground" means exactly that. We set a goal, if it can be achieved, it will be. If it can't, we change strategy. Also, you don't give the enemy every detail of your assault. I am so sick of the opposers finding fault in everything he does and supporters finding fault in nothing he does. The President is cat in a true catch 22 and needs people to be patient, see in their might be a little method to his madness, and given the same benefit of doubt President Bush was given following the September 11 attacks.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.