« | »

AP: 10 Things Learned About Obama

From Michelle Obama writing under the pseudonym of Jennifer Loven for the Associated Press:

Analysis: Campaign traits carry over to presidency


WASHINGTON — Turns out Barack Obama is the bill of goods America thought it was buying.

Little about Obama in his first year as president has come as a shock. The cautious, cerebral, enigmatic man who sought the White House is largely the same one who occupies it. For all the history-changing wonder of the election of the first black president, most of the surprises have come from events, not his approach to them.

From the beginning, with its inaugural excitement, friendlier majorities in Congress than any chief executive since Lyndon Johnson, two wars, a warming planet and economic challenges unrivaled since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and to the end, with fractious partisan sniping, a dramatically fallen approval rating and his first major victory still to come – Obama then is basically Obama now, only grayer and more tired.

But 12 months’ worth of watching the president put his signature style to work governing, instead of campaigning, provides a crisper picture. So, what have we learned? For one thing, that he’s a master of nuance with a "but" in his approach to nearly everything.

Ten observations:

He hates labels

That’s understandable, since being accurately labeled a hard left liberal would not go well with most of the American citizenry…

His first reaction isn’t always his best

No kidding! Jeremiah Wright, Georgia, Gates, Ft. Hood, you name it.

It’s been painfully clear that Hillary was right. He’s not ready for the 3am phone call.

He has a bit of a cold-fish problem

It’s called arrogance. Or at least it is when it’s a Republican.

He wears the job easily

Perhaps because he doesn’t appreciate how deeply he is in over his head. (See above, "arrogance.")

He favors candor and contrition over sunny optimism

Hah! His entire agenda, all of his talking points — are based upon lies. Rosy scenarios that will never come true.

This is the case in jobs, and with healthcare, with his post-partisan promises. Everything.

He likes to teach

Again, it’s his "arrogance."

What does he know to teach apart from the tactics of Saul Alinsky?

He relishes the art of the deal

Really? Perhaps this is true. Maybe we will know when he finally has to do a deal.

But since the Democrats have total control of the Hill — there has been no need for deals — and no deals.

Or are they pretending Obama has made some international deals. Like with Iran? North Korea? Even the Russians?

He’s both hawk and dove

Sending more troops to Afghanistan to facilitate our withdrawal in 18 months does not a hawk make.

"The bubble" bothers him greatly

Apparently, not enough.

He is amazingly out of touch. And he seems to like it that way.

There’s always a "but" in Obama’s world

Yes, he pretends there are two sides to every issue.

But he always comes down on the side of the radical left.

After all, it wasn’t an accident that he was the most radically left man in the Senate.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, January 18th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “AP: 10 Things Learned About Obama”

  1. proreason says:


    • JohnMG says:

      …..”There’s always a “but” in Obama’s world…”

      There’s always a “butt-head” in Obama’s world. Or is that…….. “somebody with their head up their butt”, in the Obama world?

      If things weren’t so serious, a person could have some fun with this ‘list of 10’. Alas, truth is stranger than fiction!

  2. retire05 says:

    While the media is all aflutter over the book that showed Harry Reid to be a total ass in regards to his comments about Obama being “light-skinned” without a “negro dialect” unless Obama wanted it, they are not reporting on the juiciest part of the book, the parts about Obama.

    The book claims that Obama suffers from a severe case of “arrogance”, was bored with the mundane routine of campaigning and found the Senate to be equally as boring. In other words, being a Senator was merely a stepping stone to the throne, one that he wanted although he did not really want to work for it.

    So what we now have is a president that is little more than window dressing for those who are actually running the show. David Axelrod, holding no cabinet post, is involved in all meetings that Obama has from cabinet meetings to meetings on national security. This is unheard of. The evil Karl Rove was NEVER privey to those meetings, as he should not have been.

    Rahm Emanuel is the Oval Office, three headed watch dog and nobody, and I do mean nobody, gets to the president without Emanuel’s approval, including members of Congress.

    What we now have, ladies and gentlemen, is a pile of steaming horse manure that was covered by whipped cream with a cherry on top to hide it’s true content. But the sun is coming out and the whipped cream has melted revealing what was beneath it all along. This administration is beginning to reveal that like the beautifully wrapped Christmas present with the pretty bow, inside it still contains a fruitcake.

  3. proreason says:

    Now is a great time to envision the end game for the malignant tumor that forced it’s way into our lives Nov 4, 2008. Even if Scott Brown has his election stolen, the country has clearly spoken.

    Here are some options:

    1. He pivots and loots as much as he can from the White House before his humiliating defeat in 2012.
    2. The puppet-masters dictate a Clintonian-like triangulation to try to their grip on power.
    3. The puppet-masters engineer his replacement, and Biden pledges to step aside in 2012.
    4. My theory of an engineered crisis after which the only solution is martial law.
    5. My second theory of a suspension of elections just before Nov 2, 2010, “for the public good”
    6. They enact voting “reforms” that permanently create a liberal majority (illegals, internet voting, etc.)
    7. A mental breakdown
    8. He announces a “return to values”, transparancy, non-partisanship, etc., and actually complies in 2010.

    and please, no over-the-top slurs against the oozing, cancerous, life-hating, alien tumor that has a death-grip on our lives. Serious policy comments only.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thanks for posting this, Pro, I’m saving it for reference.

      1 & 2 seem the most likely on the surface. Additionally, I agree with Rush that Pelosi and Obama are all too comfortable with the thought of giving congress back to the Republicans and having a legitimate enemy to demonize again. Meanwhile they get to ride the Republicans efforts to correct-course the nation and Bam gets four more years when the numbers normalize, going from Carter II to Clinton II.

      Lawrence O’donnel (West Wing producer) theorized in a blog at huffington that McConnell and the GoP Old Guard actually don’t want the majority back because they want to saddle a passed HealthCare bill as unpopular as this on the Democrat Party and run a political campaign in 2010 and 2012 on repealing it.

      Interesting thought. If there are any Republicans thinking that way then thank God for what the Tea Parties are doing because its idiotic. What the cabalists have done in the past year to turn the Constitution upside-down should be more than enough to destroy or heavily neutralize Liberalism for a generation, and their media is imploding.

      If Nerobama is in fact not as naive to this as they like to seem, then he realizes that the only way to survive is to radicalize further (4-6) – i.e. move the pawns into enemy territory and dare the other team to make the first move. Or to use Krauthammer’s metaphor – toss America hail-mary style from the 30 yardline on the left straight to the endzone.

      I’ve had a sneaking suspicion that we will see a very public #7 sometime. It doesn’t need to be said at this point, but this was NOT the way this presidency was supposed to go.

    • Petronius says:

      Pro, all interesting scenarios but my money is on your option #4, a new crisis. If there is anything that warms the cockles of the Liberal heart, it is a crisis, real or imagined.

      They have the means and the opportunity to maneuver Israel and Iran into war. Israel is already on the brink. All that is needed is a little push here or there, an international incident, or a bit of intelligence delivered into the wrong hands, and . . . bingo!

      A war in the Mideast could easily produce an oil crisis and gas lines. Possibly disruption of inland transportation systems, resulting in food shortages, reduced airline schedules, rationing, economic chaos, urban riots and looting.

      Liberal programs might foment a second-round financial or monetary crisis that could be blamed on Bush. Crisis triggered by an unexpected hike in interest rates. Or perhaps a crisis in funding the deficit. Even now mortgage companies are under pressure to make more subprime loans. The stock market is vulnerable to another major hit.

      Or some kind of dramatic reorganization in government that generates confusion and serves as a distraction, on the one hand, while, on the other hand, it gives the illusion of action and strong leadership. For example, bankruptcy of California may lead to changes in the Federal system. Or a mass influx of Haitian refugees coupled with proposals for an across-the-board amnesty; the public opposition to amnesty would afford them the opportunity to clamp down on hate speech and conservative talk-radio. Or how about packing the Supreme Court, or the introduction of a new currency?

      This much is for certain: These guys won’t surrender power without a fight. So you can bet we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The AP is not so adroit at describing things “learned” about Obama as it is describing how kind they like to be towards him. Indeed, Steve’s highlighted the truth behind the fiction that is Barack Hussein Obama.

    Additionally, things learned about a president, in this context, should be perhaps what kind of ice cream he likes, or what his favorite books are. Not personality quirks that the American people should’ve been well aware of before last November but that were hidden, if they were well-known or if of recent discovery, were squelched by an adoring media.

    It’s shameful that they even acknowledge, by their own admission, by printing this garbage, that they, too had no idea what he was about when they cast their gaze upon him and were in love.

    I’m with Pro. *barf*

    • retire05 says:

      Oh, they knew, Rusty. But the media was so hell bent on electing someone that was as far left as they are, they ignored all those quirky little traits about Obama. What is shameful is how the power of the press was used to elect someone as unept as Barack Obama.

      Now, the press is in a tail spin (Americans don’t like being lied to), Democrats in safe seats are polling badly, a Congress with a one party majority cannot pass legislation they have been dreaming of since the days of Woodrow Wilson, the president continues to make a fool of himself (Copenhagen, the Olympics, Honduras, etc) and the Democrats have their fingers in their ears shouting over voters saying “We can’t hear you”.

      If Scott Brown wins tomorrow, it will be the “shot heard round the nation”. If he loses, by a small margin, it will be the alarm going off to those Congress/Senate critters in less blue states that they can’t count on the independents that elected Obama any longer (Blanche Lincoln comes to mind).

    • White_Polluter says:

      I’m with retire05, I think the press knew. I think most posters on this site knew also. What we have to realize is that about 2% lead, 8% know what is going on, and 90% follow. What we on this site need to do, is move from the 8% into the 2%. This will be especially difficult because of the MSM bias. If not for this bias, Obama would not be in the White House.

      This article is very funny, though. Who says conservatives don’t have a sense of humor. This article is better than anything I have ever seen John Stewart do.

  5. wirenut says:

    Passed “BARF”, rocketing down to dry-heave. Somehow I missed the objective part of the article. Was there one?

  6. U NO HOO says:

    Arlen Specter, please phone your campaign manager.

  7. joeblough says:

    Curiously, although she shows up in the press from time to time Michelle inspires me to no curiousity whatever.

    After she showed up at some charity even in $500 sneakers I figured that she was probably crude and vulgar all the way down and all the way through.

    But I really don’t care.

    The idea of her representing America is creepy to be sure.

    But nowhere near as bad as her nazi bastard husband doing so.

  8. bobbys says:

    Pants on the ground.

    Pants on the ground.

    Obama done got his pants on the ground!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »