Obama the continually likable
I missed this poll when it first came out about two weeks ago, indicating that, although only 38% of respondents say that Obama should be re-elected, 65% still view him favorably “as a person.”
My question is: why? I confess I am puzzled by this continuing “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude towards Obama.
Perhaps Americans don’t want to be called racist, and have learned that any criticism of Obama automatically opens them up to that charge. Some may continue to have a favorable impression of Obama as a person because they are thinking of his family life, which seems fine. I have no problem imagining that he’s an exemplary father, or an attentive and faithful husband, or a great owner of companion animal (otherwise known as “pet”) Bo.
But that’s his private life, which is not the primary way I evaluate any president “as a person.” It is, after all, unknown because it is private. It is an indication of character, to be sure—especially when flawed, such as Clinton’s behavior as a husband. But still, it’s not enough, not nearly enough, to give a POTUS a favorable personal rating in my book.
And I will hereby go on record as saying that I, for one, have never had a favorable view of Obama as a person. I would not want to have a beer with him, even if I drank beer. I find him humorless, cold, sneaky, prevaricating, whiny, blaming, narcissistic, insular, and cutthroat. And if ever I had been inclined to like him, my exposure early on to the story of what he did to Alice Palmer, one of his first political mentors, would have disabused me of that notion.
Here’s the tale of Obama and Alice Palmer again, in case you missed it the first, second, or third time around. Most of America did—unfortunately. Do a survey of your friends, just for fun, and asked them whether they have ever heard of Alice Palmer and what Obama did to her in 1996, when he was cutting his political teeth (to coin a phrase). My guess is that—unless they happen to live in Chicago, or are political junkies—virtually all of them will draw a blank.
Pity. Because it’s an anecdote from Obama’s life that’s especially revealing about his character. Not a very likable guy, to say the least.
[NOTE: If any on the left read this piece, no doubt the predictable, empty, and repetitive charges of “racist!” will be brought out once again.]
[ADDENDUM: In a related matter, David Paul Kuhn wonders whether Obama can regroup after the election and win back the center:
Obama must win back independents to win reelection. The more interesting question is, therefore, how can Obama retake the electoral middle ground?…Clinton returned home. Not to the place called Hope. He returned to the moderation of the New Democrat platform. He took up Republican causes and took on Democratic sacred cows. The president who pushed healthcare reform and gays in the military was gone. This Clinton was fighting for a balanced budget and welfare reform. He was once more the centrist-reformist.
Kuhn goes on to write that Obama will have a more difficult time of it because his pre-presidency persona was a great deal more vague than Clinton’s. And this is true; Clinton had a moderate track record as governor of Arkansas, whereas Obama only has some moderate rhetoric during the campaign. Clinton had been a leader of the New Democrats, who represented a counterforce to the liberal drift of the Democratic Party of the time. Obama had been (albeit briefly) one of the most liberal senators in Congress.
The significance of this is that Obama, unlike Clinton, is seen by many as a liar and betrayer in his public life. Clinton was actually both in his private life—which bled over into public life when he said “I did not have sex with that woman.” But the people he betrayed were his wife and daughter. Obama is perceived as a public and political liar and betrayer by those very moderates and Independents who voted for him and whom he must woo again in order to be re-elected. Unless their memory is shorter than I think it is, this is likely to cause some trouble for him in any attempt to convince them in 2012 that he’s changed his errant ways.]
Not a likable guy in the political world, certainly, and also saddled, by whatever means, nature or nurture, with a disordered personality.
On top of which he is an odd duck – oddly dissociated from nearly every event and situation he finds himself in. I have no idea what he might be like in person with small intimate groups but I’d be surprised if he came off as warm, generous, considerate or attentive. And in public forums he’s forever off-key at best and often inexplicably inappropriate.
It should come as no surprise then, that Obama has no friends – only known associates.
I’d guess that the people who like Obama as a person are disproportionately black, female, and/or young. Had it not been for them we would not be saddled with him now.
I noticed during his campaign that every person he was said to be “friends” with was of the Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi ilk. Not the types of people most of us would want to associate with and share a beer with (I DO drink beer!).
I wondered who were the people that Obama would hang out with on a 4th of July BBQ (never minding the possibility that he’d be appalled to celebrate Independence Day). I don’t recall any stories suggesting that there were any such people in his life. You’d hear about Bush’s and Cheney’s friends. Where were Obama’s?
I’m not an expert on the topic, but isn’t it normal for a narcissict to have no close friends? From what I’ve read, Obama is a textbook example of a narcissist..
Neo,
I, too, have wondered about the paradox of Obama as a “likeable guy.” My benchmark has always been whould I want to be his (or anyone’s) next door neighbor. I find him totally untrustworthy.
For my part, I am leery of people I don’t understand, and count none whatever among my friends. You just don’t know where you stand with them, and consequently have to be on guard with them at all times.
I’ve worked with such people, because I had to, but have never been friends with one. Ever. I handle them with tongs.
Having embarked on a scorched earth policy to denigrate and/or insult the only people left to him, the blacks and the proggies, I’d say our boy is just about batting 1000 in the Infuriate the Voters Home Run Derby.
Unless this guy really can fiddle around with sea levels and solar winds he won’t be renominated.
Neo, you are absolutely spot on. You must approach any requested evaluation of Obama with a clear statement that your response ONLY attaches to his policies and not to his person, otherwise, it’s “unleashed the hounds.” So, you inoculate yourself by prefacing any criticism with a clear statement that you love the guy, but he seems a bit misguided (or is that too critical?).
Anyway, no desire to share a beer with anyone who can’t get a pitch over home plate. (Guess Charlie Crist is out, too. BTW, what is it with guys who can’t throw? Is it a progressive thing?)
Proof that Leonna Helmsley may have actually been a saint and we had no way of knowing it?
Neo, thanks for bringing this concept up. I am likewise puzzled by it.
I initially thought him to be an ignorant, arrogant, lying racist (in the old-fashioned sense of discriminating against people on the basis of their race) who’s sole accomplishment outside of politics was keeping Walmart out of Chicago for awhile. This impression is confirmed daily. This is not an appealing type to me.
I am sure he would only fake interest in any idea, problem, suggestion, or observation I could offer. I would not like to spend any time with him whatsoever. I feel so sorry for that National Security Advisor who must brief him every morning.
I also have no interest in his father and his dreams. He is certainly the world’s luckiest race grievance huckster, and that is sort of interesting, but there is something missing in him, and I fear this all will end badly.
Not likeable. Not even a little bit. His only redeeming quality, IMO, is his obvious dedication to his daughters, but has so many other negatives that I couldn’t possibly describe him as a “likeable” person.
In the end, the persistant polls that report that Obama remains personally likeable (while his policies are not )can be explained by the race factor. Many people are reluctant to say that they don’t like him personally…because he’s black. IMHO.
I do find that our “other black president,” Clinton, is more appealing as a person than Obama, however, in spite of his serious shortcomings in the character department. I wouldn’t mind hanging out with Clinton and having a conversation, in spite of the fact that I disagree with him on almost as many things as Obama. Go figure!
Anyway, no desire to share a beer with anyone who can’t get a pitch over home plate.
Hey, hey! Although I was a pitcher in high school and college, I can’t get a pitch over home plate now either, but I can still hit the low 80s. I’m just wilder than hell. Safest place to stand is on home plate.
Would someone smarter than me please explain something to me? If Palin polls at 22% popularity and Obama’s north of 50%, why do Palin’s speeches and appearances sell out until they are SRO, while Obama can’t fill a room ina democrat friendly city such as NY (they were giving tickets away).
I do remember Alice Palmer, as well as a number of other figures from the Chicago political scene that Obama screwed over. He was Emil Jones’ pet, and Mr. Jones basically told Obama’s rivals to back off. The guy is a Manchurian Candidate, and the sooner he is voted out the better.
I have been wondering where this presidential polling bifurcation came from. I don’t recall any president before Clinton having two polls, one on job approval and another on personal approval. Maybe, though, it was done and I’ve just forgotten it. Anyway, back in the ’90s I thought that the polling technique was developed so that Clinton, even during the worst days of his tenure, could be said to have high approval ratings, albeit only in the personal approval category rather than in that of job performance. The public media wanted to be able to say something good about Clinton, the contemporary public liberal. Well, many people found him likable, a bit of a rogue, the kind of guy they’d like to hang out with and party with, and the press wanted to speak as well of him and his popularity as they possibly could.
I don’t think we heard so much of the same polling bifurcation about Bush, but then no one in the public media wanted to say much good about him anyway, so there was no search for things regarding which Americans might like him.
Now here we are, and we have it again about Obama. I’m with neo, though. I despise his policies, and neither would I wish to spend any personal time with him. For a moment, back at the beginning of his prominence and campaign, I thought he had a lovely family and made some winsome appearances himself. I recall in particular a video of him standing at the back of an auditorium, before he won the nomination, listening as Ted Kennedy spoke from the stage. Kennedy referred to him as “Osama Obama,” and Obama folded his arms and laughed in an engaging and comfortable way.
My, how the worm has turned. He is no longer engaging, and with his character and ideology clearer, he is no longer even intriguing–except as a possible exemplar of pathology (I, too, read the Alice Palmer story back then and was appalled). I can’t imagine why anyone would want to spend time with him. I certainly don’t understand why anyone would bother to run 2 polls about him, with one asking about his policies and the other asking people whether or not they “like” him personally. With things as bad as they are and with no improvement in sight, I can’t imagine why it matters, or why anyone would care.
The man is a deliberate destroyer.
Remember the phony is only half-white, so when we talk about his incompetence, immorality, and duplicity, we’re only referring to his “white-side”, lmao
Occam’s Beard, any general rule worth the name must have an exception. And I’ll buy so long as no one uses the occasion to lecture on post-racialism.
To get a good understanding of why Obama does what he does, read Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”. It’s the best analysis of Obama’s motivations I’ve run across. Deep down, he doesn’t like our country and this book explains why.
I’ll join the chorus of those who detest this man…have since he started to run for the presidency.
I bet more of the protest against him is because of his unlikeability than people realize.
I see Palin as the anti-Obama. Obama’s policies are unpopular, but those polled profess to like him. Contrariwise, Palin’s policies accord well with the views of most Americans, but she herself has cloven hooves as far as many are concerned.
I did not know this story about Alice Palmer. I have disagreed with everything the man has done from the beginning of this administration to the latest flap-I mean it’s always something with these guys, but I always gave him credit for being a good dad, which is huge in my book. According to this column, Alice Palmer did him a good turn, and then he kicks her to the curb. Its clear that loyalty to him is based entirely on your usefulness to him.
Pollsters know the numbers they call, which makes it possible to know who says what about Obama. On the off chance that this make come back to haunt you (“the only reason you criticize him is that he’s black”) people may be shading their opinions of him personally.
I never could stand him, the arrogant git. My bunghole-detector is working just fine, thank you.
I’ve also been amazed/appalled that anyone would be taken in by this oleaginous jerk. So full of himself, it’s a wonder he doesn’t explode.
And so damned damaging to our country.
If I remember correctly, the Alice Palmer story was front and center in the piece in the New Yorker that ran in August/September of ’08 – you know, the one with the incendiary cartoon of Obama dressed as a Muslim and Mrs. Obama dressed a la Angela Davis.
The article was an eye opening piece as to what a cold, calculating, manipulating (pejorative redacted) Obama truly is. Too bad that the American public judged that magazine by its cover.
As to Palin, the nonsensical polls and cloven hooves, be patient folks. That election isn’t for two more years and by that time she will be at full throttle with afterburners. Ain’t nothing going to get in her way, certainly not a two bit Marxist community organizer.
We are going to have one hell of a mess on our hands by the time of the next inauguration, it will probably be a wider and deeper mess than any of us now realize.
But I will make two predictions:
Palin will win, much as Reagan did in 1980, and
Obama will not be on the stage when she takes the oath. I don’t think it will be his choice not to be there.
I didn’t need a big helping of prescience to be able to predict during the 2008 campaign that dissent would quickly go from “the highest form of patriotism” to “racism.”
And yes, personal character was supposed to be irrelevant to a president qua president when it was Clinton. It became totally irrelevant when it was Bush who, by all accounts, is a pretty likable guy.
As to Obama’s personality, what he’d be like if he were your next door neighbor, I don’t know. On the other hand, he’s supposed to be this great intellect. We could get some idea about this if he’d release his grades and test scores.
He’s supposed to be a great orator but can anyone point to anything he’s said that’s especially insightful, or pithy, or clever?
The Anchoress once said she gets so tired of saying, “Imagine if Bush had done this”, speaking presumably of media attention and ginned-up public outrage. Which, by implication, she was saying was absent when Obama was the subject.
I think we also get tired of saying things like, “Imagine if the media had looked into Obama’s record as hard as they did into Palin’s record.”
Obama’s great skills and accomplishments are kind of strange. They are not at all evident. But so many people tell us they exist.
He is so personally popular because he used neuro linguistic programming techniques during his campaign appearances to bond his followers to himself. Remember those hysterical and fainting fans at his campaign stops? He used the same techniques that faith healers, televangelists and con men use to get people — even the poorest people with virtually nothing to give — to hand over their money to them, but in the case of Obama, he didn’t want their money. He wanted their votes and got them. And just like the little old lady who is conned by the same con man over and over again for years, they know they cannot trust him, but they cannot not trust him because their gut tells them otherwise.
Another word for this is the cult of personality, and Obama is easily the best practitioner of the art of the 21st century.
Somewhat off topic (it is about politics), but have you seen Greta Van Susteren’s interview with Christine O’Donnell?
Bradley effect writ even larger. When a poll asks if people will vote when a black candidate is in the race, a certain percentage will lie because they don’t want anyone to think that their vote choice means they don’t like black people.
That percentage must absolutely SOAR when the question directly addresses whether they like a black president. If vote choice implies liking black person, liking is pretty explicitly about liking.
As it so happens, I did meet Obama once, at a campaign event when he was running for the Illinois US Senate seat back in 2004.
He was rude. His rudeness was surprising, given that his job at the event that day was to say nice things to voters and shake hands. He failed miserably at both tasks.
His handlers stepped up their game dramatically after that campaign. He is rarely allowed to open his mouth anymore unless his remarks are scripted and in the teleprompter.
In person he was a nasty man who left no doubt what he thought of us, the little people.