Disclaimer up front - I’m extremely liberal, generally vote Democrat, and am a pretty strong Obama supporter. But I’d appreciate hearing from others - especially non-fans, how they feel about his public presentations such as this press conference. I have no desire to convince anyone one way or another - just curious about the various things that combine to comprise one’s emotional reaction to an individual.
As I said, for the most part I support Obama’s policies. But I feel that apart from his policies, he strikes me as an intelligent, reasonable person, open to differing views, and aware of the many facets involved in just about every issue. As Jon Stewart says, the words he uses make sense to me. He seemed to try to respond to reporters’ questions honestly and thoroughly - tho there were certain issues he flat out refused to discuss. He acknowledged philosophical differences with others, but I did not perceive him as being dismissive or disdainful as I felt his predecessor often was.
I’m wondering about the interplay between my support for his policies, and my respect for him as an individual. And I’m curious how he comes across to folks who disagree with his policies.
I don’t want to turn this into a Bush attack, but my personal experience was I not only disagreed with what Bush was saying/doing, but I also disliked the way he said it. I very much disliked Reagan similarly - still don’t understand why folks styled him “the great communicator.” But was not so strongly disposed against Bush the elder. Clinton, I generally supported his policies, and I respected his speaking ability, although it alway seemed pretty clear to me that he was a bullshitter who could convincingly say just about anything he thought would be to his advantage.
But listening to Obama last night I found myself wondering how someone culd dislike him as a person. Are there people who are unable to listen to his speeches and press conferences, as I was with Bush II?
I can’t help liking Obama, even though I don’t agree with all his decisions. (E.g., I’m disappointed about not prosecuting low-level CIA personnel involved in torture.) Of course, his predecessor set the bar really, really low when it comes to honest, articulate discourse.
Aside from the occasional press conference I’m surprised at how little we ever actually see/hear from Obama himself. That is not a criticism of him at all, but rather the news media in general.
I was flipping through the channels the other day and stopped on C-Span to listen to a speech he was giving(I forget to who exactly) on education. It was really quite good, both in the sense that I liked the policies he was talking about, as well as his natural gift of just being someone you want to listen too.
I hadn’t thought about it much before that, but it was then that it struck me of just how little air time he gets on the 24/7 news channels. I mean really you could watch only those channels for a few days and you are not likely to hear more than three minutes total of the actual President himself.
I haven’t gotten the same impression. I never watch CSPAN at home, but it is occasionally on at the helath club where I work out over lunch. On Earth Day (I believe) they carried some speech he gave at (I believe) an Iowa wind turbine tower plant. And I think I caught another one earlier. And there was the deal when he went over to Congress. My impression was that they’d carry him just about whenever he started talking.
I’m another Obama supporter, and I think you have a good point about the interplay between liking him as a person and liking how he’s running his administration. He has done several things that I strongly disagree with, but in the end I have to say that I trust he’s come to his decisions after careful thought. He has rushed sometimes, but hasn’t come across as rash. You can practically see the wheels turning in his head as he formulates his answers to questions, and his answers are often nuanced.
Two things that particularly make me want to listen to what he has to say:
He’s respectful.
He shows a sense of humor.
For example, his response to the rather long-winded question about what he’d found surprising, enchanting, humbling, etc. about his office. First, he teased the questioner a little by saying he needed to write it down. But he wasn’t at all dismissive and took the time to answer each element. In a nutshell, that’s what I find so likeable: he takes other people and their thoughts seriously without always being serious himself. That takes grace.
I thought he dodged a little on the question about whether he thought Bush’s admin had been unlawful in torturing. I’ll have to rewatch it to remember anything else that bugged me – I know there was one other thing, but it’s not coming to me right now.
You know, I thought it was just me, but you’re right. Since late February it feels like I haven’t seen him on TV at all. I don’t think I ever went two days without seeing Bush, let alone two months.
More critical questions as well. None of this B.S. about an enchanted White House.
I’m not an Obama supporter - so I can tell you what is starting to grate on me. Many statements seem to announce big breaks with the previous administration - I feel this is the wrong way to go. This isn’t like parliamentary countries where new administrations change the whole government - and an awful lot of executive continuity is expected in our system.
Everybody knew changes were coming - Obama can make these without talking about Bush all of the time.
Additionally, President Obama’s “bipartisanship” seems to be limited to giving the other side a very respectful listen before dismissing it entirely.
Real bipartisanship isn’t being nice to the other side - it is working with them. Reagan used to cut deals with Democrats and attack them in speeches on the same day - and the Democrats would do the same.
Obama’s vision of bipartisanship is a sterile one of meaningless gestures. I hope this changes.
I don’t think much of him or his politics, although I do not particularly hate him either. I would like to say he’s a bad man or a uniquely sucky President, but I mostly think he’s a somewhat dirty political insider (judging by his Chicago practices) who is over his head. He’s mostly let things go to none-too-competent subordinates, probably because he can’t find anyone better right now. I don’t precisely blame him for this, but a lack of this essential quality is hardly a soaring reccomendation, either.
My main point is that his delivery is overly-grandiose than his rhetoric can sustain. The real deep thinkers and great speakers of American history presented much better and complete ideas, and were willing to take the time to do it. Obama has a very fixed presentation, and one speech of is is largely the same as the next to me. It’s a very good speech, but there’s nothing underneath, the same as most politicans’.
I have no problem with people being quite partisan. That’s why they are elected What I despise is hypcrocracy. I don’t mind being atacked while we cut deals (as Mr. Moto noted); I dislike being attacked while my opponent claims he’s post-partisan and willing to cut deals (but doesn’t do it).
Overall, I blame television. I wish I was joking, but the era of the soundbite has rendered things very, very messy. Plus, everyone rushes to publicaly declare how bipartisan they are while hating on them at every opportunity.
I’ll have to do a little more looking into past administrations’ “bipartisanship.” Were the Dems in Reagan’s day more willing to meet in the middle than today’s Repubs? I don’t know myself.
As Obama has said, bipartisanship means something other than “the president/ majority caves.” It is intellectually apealing to me when he says there are some core values/issues which he simply is not going to abandon, but he is willing to explore for “other” areas on which there is more room for give and take. But I acknowledge that could just be rhetoric. He did seem to identify at least a couple of bills/issues on which he supported Repub/bipartisan legislation.
I would apreciate any examples you could provide of siginificant issues in which the Repubs expressed a true desire to cooperate with Obama, rather than oppose? Tho not a student of such maters, ISTM that todays Repubs seem very unwilling to give a little in order to get a little.
And - sorry to go back to Bush - but I never got the impression that he even extnded the opposition a respectful listen. So I guess I find Obama;s approach - even if an empty gesture - somewhat of a refreshing change. He doesn’t seem to belittle those who disagree with him.
It is so difficult to compare different admins on this, because you really have to study the makeup of Congress and public sentiment. When one party lacks a strong majority, I can imagine bipartisanship being more appealing.
I’m an Obama supporter - but I was severely disappointed by one of the answers in the press conference (I think it may have been the very last question.)
He was asked about the Dept. of Justice continuing to ask for the dismissal of lawsuits on the basis of the state secrets doctrine despite campaign promises to the contrary. He said it would take time, yet his Justice Dept. has not asked for a continuance (correct term? IANAL) or delay in the case while they contemplate new strategies, and he didn’t acknowledge that there are other ways to deal with classified evidence in court that already exist and don’t have to be created from scratch.
I may have voted for him, but I don’t feel bad about castigating him for a clear failure in justice.
Yes, as I said or intended to at least, C-Span seems to be the *only *place to watch Obama beyond short, often out of context soundbites; excluding his occasional prime-time events. My beef was with the cable news channels. Now it could be different during the daytime(or even on the East coast), but after 4 or 5 pm Pacific, it’s nothing but talking heads.
It is also unfortunate that, at least on our cable channels, they tuck C-Span 1&2 so far away from the rest of the news channels. While they(cable news) are all up in the 40’s, C-Span is hidden down with some other semi-obscure public/government access channels in 20’s, it is also surrounded by shopping and infomercial channels. So unless one were to actually go looking for it, the casual news viewer might never hear the President speak, at least until his next special.
I hope Obama does more prime time appearances.
…bonus, on the west coast we get the conferences earlier so they don’t even mess up any regularly scheduled programming.
I have regularly been disappointed by any number of things during Obama’s first 100 days. But being a political pragmatist, I am confident that there are few alternatives with whom I would not have disagreed even more strongly on more issues!
Isn’t it the case that you pretty much always vote for the candidate whom you feel you agree with the most strongly on the greatest number of matters that are of greatest importance to you? Surely no one expects to encounter a viable candidate with whome they would agree 100% of the time…
:dubious: Nonsense. We do have a “permanent government” of civil-service bureaucrats with a degree of political independence based on the the mission statements of the legislation creating their agencies (and who put up practically the only credible fight under W, who did more than any POTUS in living memory to try to politicize their departments – story here). But, so do countries with parliamentary systems. There is no essential difference.
I’m with you all the way there. I also consider myself something of a political pragmatist. Endlessly dissappointed yet optimistic. It’s a better state for me than total cynic.
I told someone yesterday that in the typical presidential press conference, about 90% of the answers are canned statements that avoid the question entirely, while about 10% are substantive responses.
In President Obama’s press conferences, those numbers are reversed. I agree that on the question about the Bush administration’s responsibility for torture, and the one about state secrets, he gave typical political non-answers. But on every other question in the press conference, he gave thoughtful responses that addressed the question asked. To me, that’s a remarkable turnaround from previous administrations (Clinton included), and why for the first time in my life I now eagerly seek out presidential press conferences and watch them in their entirety.
If he keeps stiffing Fox (not that I blame him), at some point it’s going to look petty. Maybe he should just take one from their guy once in a while, laugh it off the way he laughed off McCain’s stuff during the debates, and let them look just as foolish but without an excuse.
