The "No Drama Obama" label suits him. Long, lean, and always perfectly turned out, the man looks as though he could withstand a nuclear staredown without breaking a sweat.Now admittedly, my brain shuts down whenever I read phrases like "appear presidential." It's one of those phrases which, in a world of Monica Lewinsky and missing WMDs, I simply can't comprehend. Moreover, I keep wondering when some humility will kick in for those of us in the punditry class. Remember when Obama wasn't black enough and Hillary was going to murder him in the hood? Remember when John McCain campaign was effectively dead? Remember when the primary was going to be over in New Hampshire?All of which strikes me as a bit of a problem at this point. While the cool, composed, no-drama demeanor helps Obama appear presidential--and no doubt allays some subliminal white racial anxieties--it also threatens to make him look a bit detached from the many and multiplying crises around him. These are not, to put it mildly, the most soothing of times for Americans. The economy is shaky. Unemployment is up. Growth is down. Oil prices have hit the roof just as home prices have crashed through the floor. Detroit is facing a full-fledged meltdown. We are still embroiled in two wars, neither of which offers much hope for a happy ending. Al Qaeda is running wild in western Pakistan. And now, like some bad acid flashback, Russia is acting like it wants to restart the Cold War.
« Of abortion and abolition | Main | This is good, no? » Silly season--no, seriously19 Aug 2008 12:00 pm
Not that she should care, but Michelle Cottle is one of my favorite writers at TNR. I recently read a bunch of Michelle Obama profiles, and her's--which wasn't even quite a profile--was by far the best. But I don't quite get the point of this piece on Obama's cool:
Comments (23)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I don't see why Obama's demeanor is a problem in this regard. Yes, we are not in soothing times, but why then would we want to elect someone who was going to run around like a chicken with their head cut off? Stability is in Obama's favor on this one. Plus I think he has been very effective at communicating the "urgency of now" while still maintaining his cool demeanor.
Once again, when it comes to Obama it seems that nothing is an asset. He speaks too well, is too thoughtful, too successful. I guess if he wins it will be the narrative will be "he only won." I think this sort of stuff is a much a part of pundit/race/class/cynicism nexus as it is symptomatic of a wider issue in today's world. Now we can gorge ourselves on almost everything, shopping, media, opinion etc. and in an environment like that the prevailing questions some to become what else you got, what's next to critique and consume? These continuously sideways, backwards and straight up foolish observations about Obama are simply a byproduct of that context. Or it could just as easily be that these pundits have deeply lost the plot, who knows?
Obama's too cool a cat to be president. Next thing you know he'll be talkin some jive and askin for a little skin, daddy-o. Just ask Maureen Dowd.
From Harvard-trained law professor to smooth-talkin street hustler in just one election cycle. God bless the media.
"no-drama demeanor helps Obama appear presidential"
No, it makes him appear adult, especially when he is compared to that hotrod flyboy, and in troubled times that kind of demeanor is reassuring rather than troubling.
Adult - notice how we are not hearing anything more about Obama's youthfulness?
sorry T-NC, but i think that cottle hits on a basic issue that obama is going to have to address.
his demeanor - and if you want to define it as "cool" for the purpose of the discussion, fine - hurts him and it is preventing him from being a more effective candidate.
i absolutely get why obama presents as he does. the last thing in the world he wants to appear as is an "angry" black male. but he has over-compensated, i believe, and erred on the side of being too dispassionate.
he, unfortunately, reminds me of michael dukakis, a bloodless technocrat who screams competence, but who fails to connect on an essential level.
americans react negatively when they see a public person get pummeled and then watch that person just brush it off without getting upset and lashing back. obama's above it all, i can't bothered to be concerned with insults is a posture that rings foreign to americans. americans want their leaders to be ready to punch someone in the nose, metaphorically, if they are assaulted. someone who simply whines and whimpers about an attack is a wimp not worthy of their support.
obama has to understand one basic facts about americans: they make decisions based on EMOTIONAL appeals, and then they find a fact or two to justify that emotional decision.
as long as obama insists on dispassionately listing the reasons voters should pick him he is going to remain in this hovering, vulnerable position.
if he wants to win the election, he is going to have to show americans a bit more passion and break out of his fm disc jockey presentation.
When they stop using terms like "pundit class" and acknowledge that they are just making this shit up as they go along. Or when their jobs are outsourced to India/swallowed up by unpaid bloggers on the Internet.
Yes, because this has been working so well for us over the past ten years or so. Right now we've got a leader willing to do just that, as long it's someone else's kid doing the punching.
Frankie,
You may be right--and you may not be. The Bears may go to the Super Bowl this year. Or they may suck. Really, how can you know?
Once again, when it comes to Obama it seems that nothing is an asset. He speaks too well, is too thoughtful, too successful. I guess if he wins it will be the narrative will be "he only won."
Don't be silly. When Obama wins, the media narrative will be "why didn't he win by more?".
(I'm only half-joking here.)
"Yes, we are not in soothing times, but why then would we want to elect someone who was going to run around like a chicken with their head cut off?"
Because shitting your pants at the drop of a hat is the highest mark of seriousness. Cowardice is strength.
"I think this sort of stuff is a much a part of pundit/race/class/cynicism nexus as it is symptomatic of a wider issue in today's world. Now we can gorge ourselves on almost everything, shopping, media, opinion etc. and in an environment like that the prevailing questions some to become what else you got, what's next to critique and consume?"
When you get right down to it, most television pundits think middle-class Americans are functional retards. They then project their elitism on liberals actually trying to do good things while the pundits also fetishize the ignorance - mean unpretentious nobility - of the middle class. Then they call Obama an elitist for drinking orange juice and not acting like a retarded person.
Wow, that was such an inane piece. I expect a lot better from Cottle.
TNC, you really can't comprehend what it means to "appear presidential?" It really makes your brain shut down?
Tell me, do you believe that someone who looked like Carrot Top or Pee Wee Herman could be elected president?
Or that someone with a public record of something distasteful -- say, promoting dogfighting, a la Michael Vick -- would get much support from the electorate?
You make the mistake of conflating issues that happened after an election -- Lewinsky, missing WMDs -- with the way voters perceive someone who has not yet been elected.
The American voter -- or media pundit -- may not be able to define what it means to "appear presidential," but they know it when they see it.
Meh. You appear presidential when you win the presidency. The missing WMDs did nothing to stop Bush from winning again. Lewinsky did virtually nothing to Bill Clinton's approval ratings.
T-NC,
you are right. we don't know what will happen. all we can do is conjecture about what may happen. of course.
but, we can look at history, especially our recent history from presidential elections, to try to determine what may happen.
what has happened is pretty clear.
republicans beat up on the democratic nominee, paint him as a little b_tch who is unwilling to stand up to an assault and then ask americans is that the kind of guy you want leading your country.
crude?
yes.
despicable?
yes.
beneath contempt?
yes.
effective?
unfortunately, extremely effective.
the fact that clinton won two terms was no coincidence.
he has been the only democrat willing to hit back as hard as he got hit. he was the only democrat willing to actually attack and make republicans respond to his attacks.
his '96 campaign should have been the syllabus for obama's campaign this year.
instead, obama is insisting on attempting to do something that has never worked before in american politics: depend on the good, common sense and intellect of the american people.
"instead, obama is insisting on attempting to do something that has never worked before in american politics: depend on the good, common sense and intellect of the american people."
Yes he is trying to do something that hasn't worked before and he's not wrong for that. I think that the cultural forces are in play to support it in the wake of this current administration. If at this moment in our history, arguably an extremely critical time on the social, economic and foreign policy fronts, a mature approach to governing is rejected then what hope is there? I think that this time the responsibility for what happens is squarely on the shoulders of the American people in a way not seen in a generation. It's up to them to either have the courage to attempt to realistically move forward or continue like we have in the past and hope for the best.
Remember when Obama wasn't black enough and Hillary was going to murder him in the hood? Remember when John McCain campaign was effectively dead? Remember when the primary was going to be over in New Hampshire?
Man, those questions were from months ago!
The Bears may go to the Super Bowl this year. Or they may suck. Really, how can you know?
Kyle Orton as the starting QB, throwing to Marty Booker, the No. 1 receiver, behind that offensive line. Have you seen the Bears this year? Yes, there are some things that you can know. The Sun will rise in the East and set in the West. The bears will suck.
If at this moment in our history, arguably an extremely critical time on the social, economic and foreign policy fronts, a mature approach to governing is rejected then what hope is there? I think that this time the responsibility for what happens is squarely on the shoulders of the American people in a way not seen in a generation. It's up to them to either have the courage to attempt to realistically move forward or continue like we have in the past and hope for the best.
Well put, Karl.
"instead, obama is insisting on attempting to do something that has never worked before in american politics: depend on the good, common sense and intellect of the american people."
Yes he is trying to do something that hasn't worked before and he's not wrong for that. I think that the cultural forces are in play to support it in the wake of this current administration. If at this moment in our history, arguably an extremely critical time on the social, economic and foreign policy fronts, a mature approach to governing is rejected then what hope is there? I think that this time the responsibility for what happens is squarely on the shoulders of the American people in a way not seen in a generation. It's up to them to either have the courage to attempt to realistically move forward or continue like we have in the past and hope for the best.
Michelle Cottle's brain has been turned into mush because she's spent too much time out in the hot sun.
Cottle's column is one of the dumbest pieces I've read about Obama during this election cycle. If Cottle really believes the nonsense that she's written, she must have flunked out of elementary school.
I think "appear presidential" is implicitly followed by "like Morgan Freeman, or Samuel L. Jackson." Not any recent actual office holder. It's aspirational, if you will.
I'm not sure if she's getting at something real here, or not. On the one hand, the hysterics who are really, really mad at the Republicans and want Obama to lash out hard with all the well-justified insults the press will cover coming from him, but not MarKos, need to be ignored. On the other hand, in the primaries he gave an impression of not wanting to deliver a knockout blow. Which, fine, it's Hillary, and for reasons of both gender and Clintonian mistiness there's a limit to how hard he can hit--at least that's what people said. They want to see that justified so they can say "See, he was nice to Hillary, but McCain--no quarter."
I'm waiting to see how it looks in September. Right now, the evidence supports the summer laying groundwork and a building campaign in the fall.
Side note--in the current issue of the magazine Fallows has a nice piece about the debates, in which he notes that Obama debating Alan Keyes was quick and sharp and comfortable and quite a contrast to the deliberative debater we see now. I like that Obama sounds like a professor, but there are times when shortness and clarity rather than careful deliberation come across better. It's the difference between "Well now, that's unreasonable, and we need to consider the overall directions and many facets...." vs "You're wrong. Short reason why." He doesn't need all his answers to be the latter, but a few more might be a good idea. (Ideally you give the impression that the former always exists behind both types of answers.)
I would like to know how Republican voters mentally reconciled the "Bush is a guy I can see myself having a beer with" with needing to vote for someone who seems presidential, as we're all told is how Americans vote. I feel fairly sure that beer buddy quality and presidential-ness are contradictory traits.
Oh that's right. I forgot there's a different standard for electability, patriotism, and arrogance/confidence if you're a Republican.
Silly me.
i have to respond. First of all, dig your blogs...a new and different perspective within atlantic. plus, dig the old school footage of nfl.
i read that obama is too cool for school, doesn't break a sweat, blah, blah, blah. Sometimes, I do want him to show emotion, but imagine, if he started too. "They" will start to label him as angry, cant control his emotions, which feeds into the all too common stereotype of "angry black man." Obama is doing just fine. His cool, measured, thoughtful responses are a nice relief of the cowboy, belligerent, arrogance of the past 8 years. McCain will only continue that.