"DEFINE 'SUFFICIENTLY ENRAGED'"

[Cha]

" .... The New York Times's Jeff Zeleny live-blogged President Obama's press conference this afternoon, and wrapped things up asking whether the president demonstrated to the country that he's "in control of the crisis on the Gulf."

During a full hour of questioning, he illustrated that he has a grasp of the technical challenges at work in the oil spill. He said the government was calling the shots, the buck stopped with him and the ultimate responsibility rested in the Oval Office.

But it remains an open question whether the measured tone that has become the soundtrack of Mr. Obama's presidency -- a detached, calm, observational pitch -- served to drive the point home that he is sufficiently enraged by the fury in the Gulf Coast.

"At least he resisted the urge to compare Obama to Spock."

Look, I appreciate the importance of appearances in politics, and I'm well aware of the general media criticism that the president is calm, professorial, and seemingly unflappable -- far too much for reporters' liking.

But basing an analysis of a presidential press conference on whether Obama seemed "sufficiently enraged" seems like an awkward standard. How does one even measure such things? If he's not pounding the podium with his fist, is he somehow less engaged?

And if he is pounding the podium, is that relevant to the response to the crisis?

Kevin Drum watched the CNN coverage, and saw the various on-air personalities "solemnly advising us one after one that Obama really needed to be more emotional because that's what the American people want."

I'm not going to pretend I know what "the American people" want -- and I wish CNN wouldn't either -- but if I had to guess, I imagine the public is more interested in stopping the oil gusher in the Gulf and mitigating the effects of the disaster, and less interested in whether the president meets some ambiguous, undefined standard of being emotional.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

lol..when I was posting this I thought it said.."sufficently engaged"!:P "Enraged" makes even less sense to me. This is what Nance was talking about in her OP that so many want the President to be more like them.

[treestar]

1. If he showed any anger or rage the media would be all over that too

I see nothing wrong with a President who can keep his cool.

[Cha]

2. President Obama has his own style and it upsets

people so they have to write volumns on it. They can't knock his intelligence so they have to wring their hands about whether he's too happy or too angry or not enough of both.

[Political Tiger]

3. One of the things I admire most about President Obama

is that he is cool, calm and collective! That's what I want in a leader, not someone who flies off the handle and rants and raves like a lunatic.

[dmr]

4. This is just silly.

If he came out all blustery, they'd complain he's upsetting the nation instead of calming us.

They'd complain that he's convicting BP before the investigations are complete.

People, like this asshat, say all kinds of shit because there are those in this nation you just can't please; and don't want to be pleased. They are frustrated, and are searching for anything - anything - to pin on him! And, so far nothing sticks. That's their agenda. Looking for anything to diminish Obama in the eyes and hearts of the American people.

I'll take an intelligent, mature, calm demeanor any day.

I know he's not sitting on his hands doing nothing. I do know that this man has so many crisis on his plate like no other president in U.S history. When I hear the complaints, my mind immediately wanders over to Korea - and I know that is a nightmare in which this president is quietly dealing.

Imagine Korea, or one of our many enemies watching the president's body language. Studying his mannerisms, his tone of voice, or whatever they watch. Hell, his enemies at home are doing it! I just as soon not want them to be able to predict what my president will do or not do. x(

:hi:

[Cha]

5. Excellent Point, dmr!

The world is watching and President Obama doesn't have to fake it that he's calm, cool and collected.

He's not performing for the whims of the mediawhore punditry.

The next wave of rage will be that he's not going to be at Arlington Cemetary on Memorial Day but VP Joe Biden will lay the wreath on the grave of the Unknown Soldier.

The President will be at a ceremony in Chicago on that day as they're going back for a couple of days over the Holiday.

"just as soon not want them to be able to predict what my president will do or not do." Precisely!!


:hi:

[dmr]

6. What? What is that you say?

Joe won't be in Chicago on Memorial Day?

That's a BFD!
:rofl:

[Cha]

7. ..

:rofl:

[treestar]

8. Another thing their attitude does is that it makes the American people

look like a bunch of bratty kids. Like we can't deal with anything that happens and expect the President to be a Big Daddy. Coming from the left it is more embarrassing. The right can't say much, or at least they know that it would be hypocritical to treat the POTUS like a daddy who is supposed to make everything all right. Then on the hand, when did hypocritical ever stop them.

[Cha]

9. And, there's a special catagory for

carville and matalin's whining OP.