There are few pieces which get at the essence of Barack Obama’s problems as president than does Michael Barone’s column Wednesday,
Obama has aura but doesn’t know how to legislate. In the process of evaluating Obama’s first six months in office, this Hephaestus (so dubbed because of his attention to detail) distills and refines some of the standard criticisms we conservative bloggers raised about the Democrat during the 2008 presidential campaign:
We knew that day that Obama was good at aura, at generating enthusiasm for the prospect of hope and change. His inspiring speeches — the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines, the race speech in Philadelphia, the countless rallies in primary and caucus and target states — helped him capture the Democratic nomination and then win the presidency by the biggest percentage margin in 20 years.
But it turns out that Obama is not so good at argument. Inspiration is one thing, persuasion another. He created the impression on the campaign trail that he was familiar with major issues and readily ticked off his positions on them. But he has not proved so good at legislating.
We constantly faulted Obama for his lack of experience and absence of accomplishment. Barone spells it out, providing facts from the president’s biography to show why the incumbent is not adept at either legislating or governing.
Yeah, Obama gives a good speech (from time to time) and can captivate an audience, but he can’t author legislation. (Sounds like something a wise woman said at the GOP Convention last summer.)
Despite the Democrat’s campaign self-portrayal as a postpartisan kind of guy, he’s staffed his White House with some pretty partisan fellows, far more partisan than all but a handful of Bush aides: “Most of Obama’s top White House staffers,” Barone observes, “are politics operatives, not policy wonks.” This man is just a standard issue politician with a better presentation than most.
Instead of relying on my synposis/interpretation of Barone’s column, as with anything by this Olympian of punditry, just read the whole thing.
I assume that during the campaign, Obama advisers were strategizing with various congressional majority scenarios. They’re doing what they intended to do, even if it’s not necessarily good politicking from our less-than-enamored perspective. I agree that Obama is short on substance, but I think that’s by intent: Democrats only need majorities because the legislative and judicial branches are where the real power is; technically, the President doesn’t legislate. Democrats never (seriously) made the case that Obama is qualified in the traditional sense because they knew it wouldn’t sell. What is troubling to me isn’t that Obama has little experience; it is the cynical idea that experience is unnecessary, that the role of a President is that of a mere figurehead. I’ve no doubt he and his circle dread losing Congress. Then again, if the GOP takes over in 2010 and things improve, he just might get re-elected.
I don’t get the idea that Obama has “aura”. He can read a teleprompter. He can speak lies and abandon promises with aplomb. He has a skin color that makes too many people suspend their normal critical judgment. And he can make such people (or stupid people in general) feel loved and understood, while committing himself to nothing of substance. But “aura”? What thinking person would find him charismatic or attractive? I never have.
I simply second what ILC said.
One other reason why he has an aura, our culture is all about the external package, and he fits that bill well.
But like most of our ‘icons’, there is no there there. Even Oakland has more to recommend than this empty suit.
#3 – I second and third Leah and ILC.
Regards,
Peter H.
I agree–I never got the Obama “aura.” I don’t credit people with wisdom simply because they’re black. It’s like having to pretend the blues is complicated, sophisticated music.
Columnists criticizing Obama almost always throw in a comment about his charisma, likeability, “aura”, intelligence, or speaking skills. These columnists are insightful enough otherwise that it’s hard for me to see this as anything other than “I am not a racist” boilerplate. As far as I’m concerned, the man is wholly lacking in any genuine charisma, he is not likeable, he lacks an aura, he is not notably intelligent, and his speaking skills are a tiresome joke.
Yesterday was a tough day for Obama. The Daily Rasmussen Poll reported 51% of americans now no longer support him.
At the press conference yesterday, he looked tired and angry, and stumbled badly with his comments. A commentator later mentioned he didn’t look like a leader, and the “communicator” failed to inspire.
Minutes after Obama’s comments the market gave back about 40% of its gains.
I wonder: should someone start an Obama Presidency Death Watch?
I mean, the death is probably still very far off. But he does seem like he’s in way over his head. And the endgame, when it comes, will be frightening and spectacular to behold as all the Democrat operators – Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, Rahm, etc. – scramble for power, or at least to escape responsibility for the wreck.
Barone is a great pundit, shame he left national review, but glad he’s still getting his columns out. I initially thought Obama was a good orator, but the bloom came off the rose quickly with the Rev Wright affair, and then throughout the campaign and into this presidency it became clear that the US public had elected a psychopathic liar in chief. In one year Obama has told more lies than Richard Nixon did in six years of his Presidency, yet we are supposed to believe that 48 percent of the american public believes he is honest and has integrity?
Enough to pull your hair out, unless social pressure is skewing the numbers (people afraid to tell pollsters what they really feel about the first African (or biracial) american president to avoid negative social judgment and/or being called racist for such criticism. If you don’t believe that’s possible just look at how the media and democraps have skewered the 911 caller in the Gates’ Affaire and the african american Sgt. Lashley for daring not to make this a racial incident, and not buying the racial arsonists’ narrative.
When I would hear comments about how great a speaker he was, I was dumbfounded. Were they serious? I saw through him early on and couldn’t understand how others couldn’t see him for what he really was, an empty suit that hates capitalism. My only hope is that we’re too darn independent in this county to put up with someone like him, and he’ll only serve one term. He, and the bozos in congress, will do enough damage in that one term though.
It was all smoke and mirrors “Marketing Tricks” He is the media’s creation above all else. The Media will fight tooth and nail for Obama but has anyone noticed just how low MSDNC and CNN’s ratings are? Pretty Low can they go lower if some well known celebrity doesn’t die?
Hot Air had this in their headlines it’s pretty funny the response to the Wedding Dance Intro College Humor The Unexpected Divorce Intro Kevin & Jill’s Last Dance 🙂
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/07/unexpected-divorce-intro-jill-kevins.html
So wrote Justice Douglas in Griswold v Connecticut. For me, this is the key to understanding “auras.”
Auras are emanations from the penumbras that glow from the globular mass that are the creations of one’s imagination. They are not really there, but they are really there if your logic, wit and reason say they are there.
Obama has an aura if you are prone to see it as an emanation from the penumbras that surround him and that help give him life and substance. On the other hand, an aura can be the the stink that is an emanation from the penumbra of corruption, greed, charlatanism, phony claims and an Adonis complex.
Obama has an aura. It is only a matter of how your receptors deal with the emanations of the penumbras that make up the man.
So far, Obama is all “aura” and no substance. Or, as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no horse.
For my part, Obama’s “aura” is a fair warning to watch where you are walking. The bulls have peppered the surrounding territory with emanations and you are likely to get their penumbras all over your shoes.
“Obama has aura but doesn’t know how to legislate” per Barone.
All hat, no cattle.
All bark, no bite.
All bluff and bluster, no business.
All booster, no payload.
All crown, no filling.
All foam, no beer.
All hammer, no nail.
All icing, no cake.
All lime and salt, no tequila.
All shot, no powder.
All sizzle, no steak.
All talk, no action.
All wax, no wick.
What should one expect from a campaign that spent more time creating a logo and slogan than talking about policy?
It’s what America gets when a majority of voters stop their constitutional duty of fully reviewing a candidate’s credentials at “Hope & Change”. The Fluffer President is acting the part.
All hat, no cattle –as the beef industry says in Michigan.
The Democrats should have nominated Hillary, and Hillary knows it. She knows how stupid the left wing of the party is. But I suspect she’ll have a comeback in 2012.