[beckett]

Surely someone in the administration should have been explaining to the American people daily the historical nature of our victory, the critical issues now in play worldwide, and the humane nature of our sacrifice — if only to offer some counterweight to the monotonous negativism of National Public Radio, Nightline, the New York Times, and the Democratic contenders. Instead we have had mostly silence — reticence seen not as Olympian magnanimity, but rather as a sign of weakness that only emboldened critics and fueled the hysteria.

This is a major complaint of mine as well. The lack of eloquence, indeed the ongoing inarticulateness, in this administration is a critical flaw and a failure of leadership. Leaders must articulate the goals of the mission. It is a core function of the job. GWB, with certain exceptions in major policy addresses, just doesn't seem to have it in him to articulate his message day in and day out.

[Tolik]

Many intellectuals even having conservative inclinations just can't bring themselves to trust Bush for this reason alone: "ongoing inarticulateness", as you well said. I agree that this is indeed a critical flow.

When watching some high level performers, ballet, figure skating, violinist, gymnast, pick one, you forget how difficult the task is, and trust completely, that they won't fall or stumble, or make a mistake. When cheering for somebody less skillful, we hope for the best, but not for a second forget the difficulty of the task and that a "fall" is possible.

Same is with Bush. I cheer for him, and would not want to be in his place. But every time I see him in the press-conference, I afraid him to stumble. I think that it makes him as a "one of us" for many people, but turns off many others. Intellectuals don't see him as an equal mind (I think they are wrong) and many others just want to see a perfection in their leader.