Hugger-in-Chief
Posted on July 1st, 2009
by Lewis McCrary |
|
President Obama ventured out to the outer edges of the beltway (Annandale, Va.) this afternoon to talk with real folks about the health care “crisis.” In another illustration of how we expect our presidents to serve as national talk show hosts, he made sure to show the audience that he is there for each and every one of us in our personal struggles, giving out hugs at the first opportunity.
Debby Smith, 53, of Appalachia, Va., a volunteer for Obama’s political operation, fought tears as she told the president of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job. Obama embraced her and called her “exhibit A” in what he said was an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.
In the video of this tender moment, Obama says that “someone was pointing” at Ms. Smith, an Obama political volunteer, before he calls on her. Did “Exhibit A” have to sign any kind of release before hugging the president?
Filed under: Uncategorized, War
“President Obama ventured out to the outer edges of the beltway (Annandale, Va.) this afternoon to talk with real folks about the health care “crisis.” In another illustration of how we expect our presidents to serve as national talk show hosts, he made sure to show the audience that he is there for each and every one of us in our personal struggles….”
You know something, I don’t care. Show me that it’s not a genuine interest in people and their problems and I might, some. But even then, you’d just be slamming a politician for … being smart.
You really preferred, say, what seems to be the reigning, stick-up-the-ass sensibility/modus operandi of modern Republicans? Nixon, with what appears to have been his near repugnance of ever just sitting and talking with anyone outside his tiny little circle of hacks? (Reagan too, albeit to a far lesser extent and somewhat explicable at least to his advancing age and obviously conscious decision to just devote himself to Nancy and therefore deserving of a pass.) Bush I, who apparently had a standing rule to never find himself in the company of anyone not a country-club member? Or Bush II and his tiny circle of ass-lickers, all of whom who apparently had to have been born again and to have renounced Charles Darwin if not all of modern science before gaining acceptance?
Show me someone who doesn’t like people and odds are you’ve got a person who doesn’t much like ideas either. Or at least ideas involving people. Of course there are big exceptions, but if you don’t like people what’s the odds that you partake of the *way* most people think, which is via good conversation, debate, give and take and etc?
Certainly seems valid with the people I’ve mentioned. Can anyone imagine Nixon, or Bush I just sitting down with a bunch of folks and brainstorming things casually? (Not even mentioning The Shrub given the cosmic cognitive dissonance caused by using his name in the same sentence as “brainstorming.”) Just kicking around ideas? Trying to think outside that damned cliche’d box which does anyway exist? Calling in a cabinet secretary for lunch or dinner just to get briefed in some depth on this or that issue instead of relying on freaking short memos? Getting your staff together to have lunch with this or that author whose book you just read?
What a larf. Anyone in any of the administrations I named with a bright idea would have a better chance of winning the lottery than even getting Nixon or the Bush’s to hear of it. First of course it would have to go through their boss, then their bosses boss, and then through Hack #1 at the White House, then #2, then Haldeman, then Ehrlichman, and it would have to be in approved memo form, no more then 25 words, double-spaced, in triplicate, “yes/no” checkbox replies only…. (10 words for the Shrub, two-syllables max.)
Look at their chiefs of staff: Haldeman/Ehrlichman, Cheney for Bush Sr. I think (though he eventually did get Baker), and then the very apotheosis of the breed, Andy Card. An insurance salesman with pretensions to be one of those who believe “information management” is a science. (Who of course did a great job managing to get Bush good information about WMD’s in Iraq.)
Does anyone think that you could have an engaging conversation with *any* of those people? About *anything* really? That their sphere of knowledge extended beyond the utterly banal—and conventional? That their idea of a great notion was anything beyond re-jiggering the personnel pyramid?
Indeed, what did that one academic who somehow got into Bush II’s White House for awhile call those surrounding him? “Mayberry Machiavellis,” right?
Nuts. The type wouldn’t know an idea if it hit ‘em on the head, bad ones included. Their intellectual energies are taken up by such things as being suspicious of anyone who wears anything other than a blue suit and a red tie. If Albert Einstein himself reappeared at the door saying he had vital news for the President they’d probably faint at the idea of a guy with no socks and an old sweater being permitted to see their little tinpot god.
Nuts, I say Lew. Nuts.
The woman doesn’t need insurance. She needs health care. Since she’s alive, it appears she’s getting it.
Obama’s audience was invitation-only.
He isn’t casually sitting and talking with anybody. His plan is almost straight out of Daschle’s book.
Enough with Bush already!
George W. was not a buffoon. The identity he projected (that of a ‘just folks’ Texan rancher) offered less room for appearing thoughtful and interested than Obama’s professorial schtick does, but taking either persona (or their implications) at face value is the political equivalent of believing that Pro Wrestling is real.
Bush and Obama, like most other men who are attracted to the presidency and suited to get there, are driven by power. Being openly Machiavellian doesn’t play well with the electorate, though, so they create personas for themselves. Obama’s persona is a function of his previous job experience and the public’s desire to swing radically away from everything Bush-like.
MattSwartz wrote:
“Bush and Obama, like most other men who are attracted to the presidency and suited to get there, are driven by power….”
I will grant you that, and indeed even say that I suspect that Bush was less motivated by power than Obama, even if so far at least the latter’s doesn’t seem particularly acute.
Almost kind of a nasty anomaly at work: Clinton of course was a “people-person” non pareil, and yet that was just shot through with the sense that his love of people was just a necessary if still incidental aspect of his need to feel “on top” or to always be the “top dog.” ”
Makes me feel that what we need is a freak of sorts: A person not all that “people” oriented and who doesn’t feel the need to be seen as the alpha person, but who is still interested in humanity and society and the ideas involved with same.
Cheers,