"First and foremost, it's about not making a mistake," said Chris Lehane, who advised Vice President Al Gore during his 2000 debates, when Gore's loud sighing greatly damaged his cause. "It's about remembering people are not watching this like they're scoring a Harvard-Yale debate. They're watching this like they watch a TV show." Source
Obama has Teleprompter in Staff Meetings.
My husband just read this and remarked, “They think conservatives are a bunch of toothless rubes, playing a banjo all day long with a hound dog at our feet.”
Wait... Is that a real picture? He can’t even have a meeting without a teleprompter? With his own people??
He’s a freakin moron that is someones puppet. Why else would he need a teleprompter in such a meeting???
Where’s the “BARF ALERT”?!?!?!
How does one cleanse their mind after reading this partisan tripe psychobabble?
That's why he doesn't know whether he's Moslem or Christian, or homo- or heterosexual.
Complex and rational thought? Good grief, Dana...how much of the Kool-Aid did you drink?
The economy? Bush's fault.
Entangled in the Middle East? Cheney and big oil caused it.
Racial polarization? The Tea Party.
The deficit? Fat cats not paying 'their share'.
And now, of course, it's not that 0's a narcissistic bully that people don't appreciate the elegance of his thought; it's because all us peons is too stoopid to understand the complexity of his mind.
Perhaps, if 0 considered the needs of the country ahead of his golf games, if he kept at least one of his promises that would benefit the U.S.,
maybe, if 0 would put as much effort and forethought into leadership as he put into picking the bracket for collegiate basketball,
or even if he would practice the bi-partisanship he keeps hyping (even though he plays school-yard 'nyah nyah' games while doing that hyping),
MAYBE, people would begin to see 0 as a leader, rather than the poseur he has proven himself to be.
Doesn't this statement negate the premise of the article?
“..and most of his[BUSH] decisions could be understood, even predicted, by applying one of the overarching philosophies.
With President Obama, there is no such luxury.”
HOGWASH!
The so-called Obama doctrine is simple.
If something will weaken America’s standing in the world, then he’s all for it.
If something will damage traditional American culture, society, and culture, then he’s all for it.
He’s a marxist, not a complex or enigmatic “thinker.”
Oh, okay - that’s why Obama talks out of two sides of his mouth at the same time, can’t make up his mind, and has no set policy on anything (except for taking as much money as he can from everybody who still has any).
It’s because he’s “complex.”
I see - he only acts like an irresponsible idiot because he has a high IQ.
Or something.
The latest mime from the Idiot Leftists in the Press, who are doing everything they can to salvage this political assclown.
From the comments @ WaPo nobody is buying the crap Milbank is writing but these MFMedia cranks are determined to die trying to convince the unwashed about their messiah. It’s becoming unbecoming.
“Nearly everybody puzzles over Obama’s ad hoc responses to Egypt, Libya and now Syria, grasping for a still-elusive Obama Doctrine.”
Not me. Obama’s pretty much been what I’ve expected based on the two main things I see in him:
#1 He’s incapable of “thinking on his feet” or understanding that there are problems in the world that don’t play by orderly rules or (esp. in the case of foreign affairs) are even particularly rational. Obama lives in a world where you have to measure thrice before writing a paper on cutting once. He’s very good at that. But anything else “rushes” him. And IMHO, that further extends to a thought process that naively believes any issue, including those related to foreign affairs, can be reduced or controlled into a neat, lawyerly proceeding with the “right” policies. The reality is far messier, and always has been, even with the smartest diplomacy.
#2 I firmly believe Obama is just far too soft for the job of President. Ever since George Stephanapolous (sp?) had Obama reeling in the May 2008 Democratic primary debate, I’ve seen him as someone who just isn’t very tough. Since then, he has (among other things) let Pelosi and Reid walk all over him, reminded us “he won” on several occasions, dragged his feet on dealing with Afghanistan for so long that Dianne Feinstein jumped his case in public, and most recently snarled at a Texan reporter for not giving him “enough time” to answer tough questions. A leader has to be able to take a punch, and give as good as he (or she) gets. I just don’t think Obama can do that.
All MHO, of course.
Obama wouldn’t know a clear thought if it set camp on his lower lip and plucked nose hair with the jaws of life.
“The more of a partisan you are, the more simple-minded you are.”
_______________________________________________________________
Milbank is as simple-minded as they come, then.
I really like the absurd "poll" question and the choice of answers:
Dana Milbank argues Obama's capacity for complex thought can be an attribute or a liability. Which do you typically perceive it as?
An attribute
A liability
So, readers, there's a controversy here and we'd like your opinion - is the President's awesomeness and wonderfulness and perfectness (praise be upon him) an asset or a liability in this crude and cruel world that is unfit to worship the hallowed ground at his feet? Remember to keep your head bowed while answering this poll question, and then take three steps backwards before pressing the Enter key...
"What?s a complex guy to do? Simple. It is important, Haidt says, for the president not to be rational and fully honest.?
See, the old Bill Clinton defense dusted off.
Mussolini was once a committed Socialist who initially opposed Italy's involvement in World War I. Then he got nationalist in his outlook. And that is where he diverges from Obama.
But Mussolini was a control freak who was also a weak and vacillating leader. And after reading about how Mussolini assumed power, I became convinced that only the incompetence of his foes made it possible.
LOL! An apt comparison on many levels, 0 and Neville Chamberlain!
At any rate, 0 has demonstrated very little in terms of intellectual power. His decisions are almost universally bad. That is not the signature of a great thinker.
We feel the same frustration when we try to define 'a' or 'the.'
Still, the boundless difficulty is the awe we feel at watching an Obama audience that doesn't rest every chin firmly on chest with mouth agape just knowing at least one smart thing has to come out of Obama's mouth...someday...it just has to.