And now we have: President Clinton, doing Obama’s pressers

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s the talk of the blogophere: Obama’s bizarre (there’s no other word for it) decision to leave a press conference in Bill Clinton’s more capable hands.

Here are some very truncated video excepts:

What are we to make of this? I think that Allahpundit’s points are well taken: the whole sorry episode indicates that Obama has lost confidence, and that he’s also implying that the discussion (and Clinton himself) isn’t important enough to change his holiday schedule to accommodate it. And, as Bookworm points out, Obama’s remark about Michelle (the excuse for his leaving being that he had to meet her at a Christmas party) and Clinton’s quip in response reinforce already-existent perceptions that both men are henpecked.

In the very first post I ever wrote about Obama on this blog, back in May of 2007, I made the following observation after Obama had offered tiredness as an excuse for a minor error he had made:

…[I]t may indicate…a certain lack of toughness on Obama’s part…I’ve often thought that, if the campaign is a grueling marathon, it’s probably a (pardon the phrase) cakewalk compared to the actual Presidency.

Just as the Presidency is not for the shy or those tortured by ambivalence, just as it requires a certain amount of narcissism (perhaps more than is healthy in ordinary life), it also requires true grit and enormous””almost superhuman””endurance. And if the President doesn’t feel up to it all the time, he/she is supposed to shut up about it and not let others see.

Obama is in the “grueling marathon” part of the deal. And not only does he not seem up to it—as even the left is beginning to notice—but his political instincts appear to have deserted him while the psychological tone-deafness he sometimes shows is revealed once again.

Obama seems oblivious to the emotional message of his action in leaving the press conference (note, for example, the astonishment of MSNBC’s Cenk Uygar at the end of the clip above). In addition to the previously-mentioned messages, it conveys an inappropriately arrogant disregard for the public that he attempts to clothe in casualness, and is an indication that he simply doesn’t know what appropriate behavior is, or doesn’t care.

In other words, he’s giving the finger to the lot of us.

This is quite separate from any political or policy differences one might have with him. It’s hard to imagine that any but a tiny number of viewers—whether on the right or the left or in-between—could find his conduct anything but clearly inappropriate or at best puzzlingly juvenile.

This is hardly the meltdown some have predicted. But it’s very, very unsettling.

The Voices: Roy Orbison, Karen Carpenter

The New Neo Posted on by

I do a lot of YouTube surfing. It’s a way to relax and unwind, and it’s addictive, like potato chips, although less fattening. Last night, it started out when I came across one of those silly Rolling Stone polls—you know, the ones that purport to list the 100 greatest this and that of all time.

Rolling Stone‘s 100 Greatest Singers of All Time is a curious document. The order seems confused, featuring some people who rank higher than they should be as vocalists (IMHO), since they are really more notable for songwriting.

And what’s up with no mention at all of Dionne Warwick, a pure vocalist who was effortlessly musical? Roy Orbison at 13 was a good choice (his voice quality and range are extraordinary; memorably described by Dwight Yoakam as “the cry of an angel falling backward through an open window”). And it’s good that the fabulous Nina Simone (talk about distinctive voices!) comes in at 29. But I don’t like a lot of the others.

And then there’s Karen Carpenter. I never paid much attention to her, and Rolling Stone only clocks her at number 94, probably because she was considered corny, sentimental, hokey. But YouTube makes it so easy to go back and listen and, lo and behold, what a voice! Phrases such as “smooth as silk” and “warm maple syrup pouring” come to mind. She had what all great singers possess, a totally unique and instantly recognizable sound.

I have never heard such an effortless voice before or since (although Johnny Mathis and Nat King Cole come somewhat close on the male side, and Patsy Cline—Rolling Stone’s 46—had some of the same quality), unforced and flowing and almost unbelievably rich:

The great tax compromise: falling out of love with Obama (cont.)

The New Neo Posted on by

Many Democrats in Congress are finally expressing their rage at Obama, an anger been growing for quite some time and seems to have reached a (temporary?) head with the tax cut compromise. Major Democratic donors are not happy either; some say they’ll even sit on the sidelines in 2012:

“I do not plan to support Obama and his reelection effort,” said Utah-based hedge fund manager Art Lipson, who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party and its allies in recent elections. He views the tax-cut compromise as a giveaway to Republicans that will increase the deficit.

“He’s got many great qualities, but he is not a fighter,” Lipson said of the president. “I’ve met with many donors and the level of disappointment is extreme.”

Somehow, I don’t think it’s the increased deficit that really concerns these donors. They were and are only too happy to increase it for other reasons—just not for things that make Republicans happy.

And I wonder which elements of the recommended changes in entitlements that would really decrease the deficit are the ones they’d support if Obama were so bold as to champion them. I suspect the cuts they’d like would mainly have to do with defense. And it remains to be seen, of course, how serious Republicans will be about cutting the deficit when they control Congress starting in January. If not, they’ve chosen stimulus at the expense of a deficit that will swell, which was not the bargain voters thought they were making by electing them last month.

A while back I wrote this piece on the left’s falling out of love with Obama. In my earlier post, I compared the phenomenon to that of the lovers in Shakespeare’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” who are manipulated by Puck placing magical drops in their eyes that cause them to fall in love with the first being they see on awakening. When he later administers the antidote, they can’t understand what they ever saw in their erstwhile beloved. This is the situation we have here, despite the fact that, as Krauthammer notes, Obama really won the deal if you look at it as a way to get a stimulus going that might help the economy by 2012, although at great cost. But that’s not the way liberal Democrats look at it.

I’ve located the passage from the play that says it all, and quite succinctly:

TITANIA

My Oberon! what visions have I seen!
Methought I was enamour’d of an ass.

OBERON

There lies your love.

TITANIA

How came these things to pass?
O, how mine eyes do loathe his visage now!

Dowd, Palin the huntress, and protecting wealth

The New Neo Posted on by

Maureen Dowd seems deeply offended by Sarah Palin’s shooting a moose on the latest episode of her TLC Alaskan show (actually, Dowd seems to be deeply offended by nearly everything Palin does, including drawing breath).

You may wonder why I continue to even bother with Dowd or what she thinks. But I find it a continual wonder that she writes for a prominent newspaper. She is also a fascinating example of the full bore Palin Derangement Syndrome so prevalent among liberals, women in particular.

But Dowd doesn’t stop with Palin and the unlucky moose; she also draws the following analogy:

…[T]rigger-happy Sarah represents the Republicans, who have spent two years taking shots at the president, including potshots, and tormenting him in an effort to bring him down.

So Obama is like Sarah’s victimized moose, stalked and hunted by Republicans during the entire two years of his presidency (note especially the sadism implicit in the word “tormenting), and finally cornered, weakened, and bloodied.

Dowd then ends her piece with the following observation about Obama and the Bush tax cuts:

It’s not that hard to explain to Americans in distress that the protection of vast fortunes should not be the priority of government.

That just may be the most extraordinary and revelatory sentence in the entire column. Dowd appears to be implying that an income of $250,000 a year (the amount involved in the disputed tax cut extensions) constitutes vast wealth (although it’s hard to believe she really believes that, given the circles in which she moves). But more importantly, is not one of the main functions of government to protect the property of everyone, rich or poor or in-between? As far as I know, if wealth—whether “vast” or middling—is amassed without robbing anyone or breaking any laws, the default position is that it belongs to the person or persons who earned it.

Yes, the rich pay taxes, as well they should. But there’s nothing special about being rich that entitles other people to take more and more your money just because they’re in “distress.” And a government that sees the money of the rich merely as fruit ripe for the picking, and not worthy of being protected, is in big trouble.

Mark your calendars for the sky show

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a pretty exciting week coming up in the sky starting next Monday. First, on Dec 13-14, we have the Geminid meteor shower. Then, on Dec 20-21, a total eclipse of the moon, visible in the entire northern and southern American hemispheres. Details here.

Hope it’s not cloudy!

And speaking of total eclipses:

And remember the literal version of the original video? It’s even got a moon in it (at minute 00:29):

Obama and the art of negotiation

The New Neo Posted on by

Ever since Obama has become president, people have been giving him advice. It’s an odd phenomenon, as though they consider him a kid brother who needs a bit of assistance out in the big bad world.

Perhaps it’s because of his youth. Perhaps it’s because people realize he’s inexperienced. Perhaps it’s because (at least initially) people really wanted America’s first black president to be a success.

But all the good advice in the world won’t help if Obama won’t take it. Before the election of 2010, for example, he saw no reason to compromise—unless you define compromise as he defined it at the time, which is “you agree with me.”

November of 2010 changed that; now he feels more pressed to compromise in the usual sense of the word. How long that will continue is anyone’s guess.

This related article contains a Ronald Reagan quote that got me thinking:

“Before I took up my current line of work, I got to know a thing or two about negotiating when I represented the Screen Actors Guild,” Reagan famously said. “After the studios, Gorbachev was a snap.”

The comparison may seem laughable, and it was meant to be a joke. But Reagan did have negotiating experience, and what’s more he was pretty good at it.

And when you think about it, it’s one of the skills most important in a president. Even if the POTUS is fortunate enough to have, as Obama initially did, a strong majority in both houses of Congress and therefore not to require much negotiation there (at least theoretically; in Obama’s case it was the lagging Blue Dog Democrats who needed to be cajoled and bargained with), it’s still necessary in the foreign arena.

Obama’s towering self-confidence blinded many people, including himself, to the fact that he didn’t seem to have a significant amount of experience or skill in that arena. He also seems to have a marked distaste for it, and a personality unsuited to it as well.

[NOTE: Two other traits a president needs to have are the ability to make a decision without dithering unduly, and skill in choosing good advisers and then listening to them. Obama appears to lack these traits, too, and I think that even many of his previous and present supporters on the left would agree with that assessment at this point.]

John Lennon, 30 years later

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s the 30th anniversary of the murder of John Lennon, and for the occasion, Rolling Stone has released the full text of an interview he gave three days before he died. It contains these ironic words:

These critics with the illusions they’ve created about artists – it’s like idol worship…

“What they want is dead heroes, like Sid Vicious and James Dean. I’m not interesting in being a dead (expletive) hero. .. So forget ’em, forget ’em.

Lennon understandably wasn’t interested in being a dead anything. But Mark David Chapman had other ideas for him.

I haven’t written much about Lennon on past anniversaries of his murder. When the event happened thirty years ago, I was distracted from taking more than brief notice by the fact that I was immersed in taking care of an active baby who didn’t sleep much. I’d been a Beatles fan, but not a rabid one. And besides, I was always more of a Paul girl.

Lennon’s murder was sad, it was awful, and it still is. But the veneration of John—or any of the Beatles, for that matter—has always struck me as odd. The Beatles were energetic and funny guys who both embodied and helped form the zeitgeist of the 60s, and they made fabulous music. That’s it—and that should be enough.

Holiday reminder: Amazon orders can help neo-neocon

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: As I said, I’ll be periodically posting reminders about this through the holidays.]

What better way to give the gifts that keep on giving than to use neo-neocon as the portal for your Amazon purchases? If you click on any of the Amazon widgets in the right sidebar, anything you buy during that visit will send a modest bit of money my way, and it won’t cost you an extra cent.

Thanks!! And Happy Chanukah to those who celebrate it.

Obama the compromiser

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama’s capitulation to the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts has made the left furious. Katrina vanden Heuvel has this to say:

This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance.

Vanden Heuvel goes on to list as first step the reversal of the “perverse” Bush tax cuts that have led to “gilded-age” inequality etcetera etcetera. I wonder, though—even if you agree with her and interpret the election of 2008 as having given the president just that sort of sweeping anti-conservative mandate (which I don’t), would you not also need to acknowledge that it was rescinded in 2010 and the opposite mandate given? Ah well, let’s not expect consistency from vanden Heuvel.

Obama capitulated to the Republicans, it’s true. But it’s no time for Republicans to crow. I believe that the scenario I outlined here (right after the election) may be being played out:

…Obama actually will move towards the middle, in deed as in word. But it will be a temporary feint, a move made to convince doubters that he’s gotten the message and changed his ways.

It need only be until the next election. If Obama can moderate himself enough to be able to point to a few small but real compromises with the Republicans, he won’t be losing much and he’ll be gaining a lot. The American people are a generally genial and forgiving (not to say trusting) lot, predisposed to like him, and by then he may indeed have rehabilitated himself in the eyes of enough voters that he will win his bid for re-election and even increase the Democrats’ Congressional representation.

And then, and then””voila! Four more years! Four years in which he won’t have to answer to the electorate at all. He will be unleashed to do whatever it is he really wants. And does anyone think that would look moderate at all?

One more thing: if the economy improves as a result of extending the tax cuts, it will be seen by many (especially the moderates he needs in order to win) as another reason to support Obama in 2012. He can finally claim he’s bipartisan, and effective as well.

I hope the economy improves, because I think the country needs it. But I also hope voters see through the ploy, and defeat Obama roundly in 2012, because I fear that four years of Obama unleashed would be a disaster for the country.