Barack Obama: What kind of leader, really?

by Kurt Schulzke on October 9, 2008

Barack Obama likes to project a veneer of executive “presence”. Dean Reynolds, a CBS News reporter with one heckuva lot of courage and candor, suspects that veneer is all there is. To hear Reynolds tell it, Obama — touted as a great multi-tasker — has his hands more than full just managing his campaign and keeping his plane clean. Americans like Camille Paglia, who yesterday wrote:

. . . I still fail to see the connection between McCain’s unquestionably heroic choices under terrible duress and his suitability for the presidency, an administrative post.

. . . might want to kick Obama’s tires a bit more vigorously before signing the purchase agreement. Something big is likely to fall off. (I have no idea why anyone could think the President of the United States is primarily an “administrator,” but that’s another story.)

Consider Reynold’s comparison of Obama and McCain. Which man demonstrates better administrative and leadership skills through actions, not just words:

(NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking. . .

There is an urgency to the McCain campaign now that I don’t think was there before. Due to the fact that he is running second, no doubt, but it may also be because McCain has a finishing kick. Whatever the case, he is sharper on the stump than he was before. . .

It is true that McCain enjoys taking questions from the audience in town hall-style settings. That doesn’t mean he is the master of that kind of forum, it just means he’s good at it. He likes to converse with voters. Obama does it well too, but seldom achieves that intangible bond with the people that all politicians crave — or fake. . .

Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences.

Obama’s campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational.

Expect the same from an Obama presidency.

The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it’s all for security reasons.

That “explanation” is called a “lie.” It is intended to make people think the candidate is better organized than he really is.

If so, I would love to have someone from Obama’s campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.

Good question. I think it’s fair to say that we can expect the country to idle and meander without any real sense of purpose — except as imposed by Obama’s radical hangers-on — throughout an Obama presidency. The United States will be a sitting duck, economically and militarily.

The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around . . .

Anyone think this might be part of a deliberate effort to restrict the people’s access to information?

. . . at the time the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn’t be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it’s true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.

I don’t have much sympathy for dissed journalists. Most of them deserve it. But this “dissing” is part and parcel of who Barack Obama is and how he views himself. He is the Alpha and Omega, the healing center of the universe. His agenda — whatever it is — is the most important thing on Earth. Ordinary mortals had better get used to it.

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who’ve been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

McCain — helpful, friendly, knowledgeable, organized.  Obama — not.  Another symptom of the Obama superiority complex. He’s just too big, too good, too omniscient and too in-the-zone to bother with real people and their petty problems.

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

Strange, isn’t it? How many $$ millions has Obama raked in from all over the world?  Yet he can’t manage to keep a single plane livable?  Why should anyone believe him capable of leading the U.S. out of it’s economic distress? Lots of talk.  Where’s the beef?

The difference the two men: leadership, experience and character. McCain knows that a tight ship is a happy ship whether its a boat, a plane or a country. Obama is clueless or careless.  Either way, he’s a dubious choice in November.

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama’s past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

But, compare to Obama:

Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he’s just said. It’s made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.

These same people would follow Obama into the White House. This same chaotic, meandering, interpersonally-challenged bunch would be at the helm of the globe’s leading democracy.

And then there’s ACORN, busy in Nevada, Ohio and who knows where else, lying about who is registered to vote.  Which candidate are they lying for?  The same one who, not so long ago, was an ACORN community organizer.

Think about it. Kick those tires, folks. . . and wait for the clatter.

More from Reynolds at CBS.

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

Cayuga 10.09.08 at 1:22 am

I also don’t have much sympathy for the press. But obama scares me. I always believed you are judged by the company you keep and I cringe to think of who he has palled around with. It’s funny that wright has said nothing and is completely out of view. I wonder if he has been paid off, or if he knows that as soon as his man is in the White House, he’ll be in the Lincoln bedroom.
Kick the tires indeed.

Doran Williams 10.09.08 at 7:52 am

Kurt, I hope you will allow this extensive copy and paste from TalkingPointsMemo. It is a transcript of a video featuring David Brooks.

Brooks, as you may know, is a conservative journalist; he worked for Wm. Buckley at National Review and wrote for National Review. His comments (video here) deserve the attention of your readers, as coming from someone who is not ideologically an Obama supporter.

Excerpt transcript:

“[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he’d rather be ruled by the
first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn’t think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I’m afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.”

Danny Shea wrote at Huffington Post:

Brooks also spent time praising Obama’s intellect and skills in social perception, telling two stories of his interactions with Obama that left him “dazzled”:

“Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I’m getting nowhere with the interview, it’s late in the night, he’s on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he’s cranky. Out of the blue I say, ‘Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?’ And he says, ‘Yeah.’ So i say, ‘What did Niebuhr mean to you?’ For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he’s a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, ‘David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you’re only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.’ And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.”

Regina 10.09.08 at 8:08 am

Your hate-mongering is despicable.
Argue issues. Argue impact of decisions and ideas. Argue ideals.
Be forever grateful that we have a country where we can have two incredibly bright, decent, smart people vying for the presidency.
Neither are without fault. Both have pasts full of good and bad…including all sorts of people of sometimes questionable repute. So what? It is the cummulative experiences of each of them that have made them individuals capable of the presidency.
Vote for one of them, not against one.
Do what both of them have consistently said is needed…get involved. Do more than piss and moan on a ridiculous hateful blog. Commit your opinions to writing and make sure both candidates have copies…and make that a regular practice.
Have a voice, no matter which one we elect. And use your voice to champion the qualities you like and want to see in the Whitehouse…Champion the person who most closely represents those ideals….
Stop berating one….all it does is drag you down……they are both good and decent men…and just like tomorrow will be Friday, no matter what any of us do….one of the two of them will be president of the United States in a few short months…..
and whichever one is elected, given our current state of affairs, he will need everyone behind him….and some of you have no time to lose in cleaning out the hatred and ugliness in order to be a good and contributing citizen…..

Kurt Schulzke 10.09.08 at 8:50 am

Regina –

There was no hate-mongering in my post. Just objective analysis of a eye witness report by a man who has seen Obama’s “leadership” up close for a year. If Obama can treat people that badly during the courtship period — before the election — imagine what chaos we can expect in Washington if he is ever elected.

This is hate-mongering:

“Persons of color and women can finally believe that the American dream can be real in their lives and not just the white boys of means and connections…..
And you mud slingers can, for once, feel a little fear…and know that finally, you too may have to earn the dream…it isn’t going to be handed to you as an entitlement, anymore!!!!!!!!”

Maybe you remember the author’s name? If not, use the search box (top right).

R 10.09.08 at 8:52 am

//“Persons of color and women can finally believe that the American dream can be real in their lives and not just the white boys of means and connections…..//

That’s your idea of “hate speech”? You set the bar very very low.

Kurt Schulzke 10.09.08 at 9:01 am

R –

You’ve got to be kidding. I mean, really. Try this, instead, and tell me if the bar is too low:

“Whites and men can finally believe that the American dream can be real in their lives and not just the black boys and women of means and connections…..”

How about it R? And that’s not to mention the real kicker which you conveniently omitted:

“And you mud slingers can, for once, feel a little fear…and know that finally, you too may have to earn the dream…it isn’t going to be handed to you as an entitlement, anymore!!!!!!!!”

And for you, the bar is too low?

Kurt Schulzke 10.09.08 at 9:03 am

R –

One more thing: If you’ll omit the “//” from your comments, they won’t get caught all the time in moderation.

Regina 10.09.08 at 9:06 am

Kurt, You seem to have a real problem with intelligent discourse. Why is it impossible for you to take words as they are written, with the intention they were written with being clear, and discuss them? Why do you need to twist things to fit your predetermined format?

And your entire blog, at least of late, I don’t know what you have written in past times, is hate mongering. It really doesn’t matter what any given snippet is. The blog, in totem, is hateful and full of rhetoric and twisting, turning, nonsense.
Perhaps it makes you feel good to be meanspirited?
I find it useless and taking away of little piece of my own humanity everytime I engage in this. I came here because several people said it was a great site for good conversation. Perhaps they haven’t visited in awhile.
When I got here, I thought…”Hmmmm, maybe if I throw a slightly different perspective into the pot, folks will talk about things and therre might just be some sort of concensus derived from the discussion.”…Clearly I was wrong…..I have been attacked, my words twisted, and used as rationale for more and uglier commenting.
It’s just simply not my cup of tea.
Perhaps I’ll check back after the elections…
I’ve had it with this kind of vitriole…..I value discussion and a balanced exchange of ideas…not hate mongering.
So you and yours can give yourselves a big ole ‘high five’…or…oops, I almost forgot, “high fiving” is a ghettoesque kind of thing to do…y’all can pat yourselves on your backs that you have cleansed the site of yet another open thinker….

Kurt Schulzke 10.09.08 at 9:13 am

Doran –

“Tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he’s a politician, not an academic.”

Huh? Brooks is on the end of very large and potent bong on this one. “Powers of social perception” are about as academic as it gets. Academia is all about “perception”. Leadership requires something more.

I think Obama is like some of my colleagues at the Uni who have smelly offices littered with books and papers, coffee mugs, and left-over Danish from months or years ago — the very antithesis of a leader with the focus and management skills to choose an objective and pursue it with vigor.

By the way, don’t forget that you are a “contributor” on this blog. If you’d like to draft a post, the door is wide open for you to do so.

Kurt Schulzke 10.09.08 at 9:20 am

Regina –

If you can provide some specific examples of “hate” in my words, I’d be happy to “discourse intelligently” with you about them. If I’ve done or said wrong, I am always willing to apologize. But I need specifics — due process, as it were.

I’m not sure what you mean by “twisting” your words. I’ve quoted you, verbatim, in context.

Surely you’re not suggesting that your statement that “old men white men” should “fear” an Obama presidency is anything short of hate. You wrote those words spontaneously. There is no reason to believe that they did not come from your heart. We all make mistakes. If you have had a change of heart, perhaps you could apologize to those who fully deserve to feel offended. But until you do, you lack moral authority to accuse anyone of hate mongering.

R 10.09.08 at 9:27 am

Ah, is that the problem? Thanks. I’ll switch to using italics.

“Whites and men can finally believe that the American dream can be real in their lives and not just the black boys and women of means and connections…..”

Not the same thing. Maybe in an alternate world where America was black-dominated it might be.

As for the second part of her statement - no, it’s not what I would consider hate speech, either. “Mudslinger” is a fairly mild insult.

R 10.09.08 at 9:27 am

Make that “historically black-dominated.”

Regina 10.09.08 at 10:04 am

Kurt-
Just so there is NO MISUNDERSTANDING….your last post tome is a prime example of the garbage you pull. What I said was that folks, ingeneral, who count on the status que being intact, can no longer do that…that they will have the FEAR of having to actually work for, or earn, the ability to contend for a position of power…their race and social status will no longer be a assumed “leg up” so to speak…but then you knew exactly what I was saying…exactly what the intent of my comments were, and you CHOSE to twist them to make your hatemongering arguments.
Old lawyer trick. and a big part of why members of the bar are the butt of all sorts of nasty humor….you and yours assure the longevity of the reputation…..
And with that I am gone from these not so hallowed halls…clearly, I can’t even read your blog because my own need to respond gets in the wayof common sense…
so happy hating…..

Kurt Schulzke 10.09.08 at 10:07 am

R –

“Mudslinger” isn’t the issue.

I take it that in your universe, the morality of racial stereotyping and hate speech is synchronized to the racial composition of the community.

Many parts of America are black-dominated. How if we switch the rules of discourse depending on which racial group is the minority in your town? In Billings, Montana, “black boy” is immoral hate speech. In Atlanta and Harlem, it’s “white boy” or “cracker”. Would that work for you?

R 10.09.08 at 10:17 am

In Billings, Montana, “black boy” is immoral hate speech. In Atlanta and Harlem, it’s “white boy” or “cracker”.

“Cracker” is a slur, to bu sure; but “black boy” or “white boy” would depend on a lot of things, starting with how old the person being referred to is.

I take it that in your universe, the morality of racial stereotyping and hate speech is synchronized to the racial composition of the community.

Well, for starters, you’re already bringing your usual misunderstandings. I’m not using “dominant” to mean the statistical majority. “Dominant” means holding political and social control.

I didn’t address the “fear” remark because I wasn’t sure what Regina meant by it and I wanted to leave it to her to address it.

Doran Williams 10.09.08 at 10:22 am

Kurt said: “I think Obama is like some of my colleagues at the Uni who have smelly offices littered with books and papers, coffee mugs, and left-over Danish from months or years ago — the very antithesis of a leader with the focus and management skills to choose an objective and pursue it with vigor.”

Regina, I think that more than hatred and racism, perhaps - I hope - rather than those attributes, what we see in Kurt’s posts on the election is a strange, heady, strong mixture of anal retentiveness, lawyer argumentativeness, a palpable fear of threat to his own position of entitlements, a struggling sense of humor, and a deeply gnawing dread that McCain/Palin will not win the election. I think he may also labor under the burden of a linear thought process (”leadership” is a matter of engineering, rather than an art). Give Kurt a break: He is suffering.

Johannes Steiner 10.09.08 at 3:51 pm

Doran- It may be said that all we can see in your posts is extensive copy & pasting, alongside personal smears. This doesn’t inspire much respect for you or in what you have to say.

Regina- In addition to being difficult to read, due in all probability to its excess of ellipses, your posts reveal a simplistic, naive view of the world. Sometimes there are candidates that you should be against. In a perfect world, maybe not, but for now there are people, like Barack Obama, who would do severe damage to the constitution and to America. The tell-tale sign of a poster with no basis for what they say, is the dramatic farewell to a blog that usually sounds something like:

“And with that I am gone from these not so hallowed halls…clearly, I can’t even read your blog because my own need to respond gets in the way of common sense… so happy hating…..”

I agree with you though, your ‘responses’ are opposed to common sense.

Cayuga 10.09.08 at 5:47 pm

Status que? I guess this poor dumb conservative always thought it was status quo. At least when I took Latin (I think that was the language, French, no, but had to take it, Italiian, I can’t remember) I think that’s what it was. No use responding I guess, because we have been scrubbed out of her blogs.
I never thought doran was that nasty, but put the two of them together and wow. At least he hasn’t used the f word again. Thanks doran!

Doran Williams 10.09.08 at 8:43 pm

I really cannot pass up this opportunity.

Cayuga, do you know that F–k is a village in Austria? Really, look at an atlas with the names of Austrian towns. Or look it up on Wiki.

So, what is it about the sound of certain words that antagonize people?

Doran Williams 10.09.08 at 8:48 pm

Johannes, my smears are not any more reprehensible or non-sensical than those of others who disagree with what I have to say or with what I cut and paste. Generally, I just respond in kind.

As for cutting and pasting, if I find some other post that expresses in a concise and intelligent manner issues that I think are relevant, why shouldn’t I cut and paste? The alternative is to “steal” from those posts and just add my own chatter to the background noise. I don’t need to show off. I’m content with passing on stuff that I think in worthwhile.

You can be assured that, unless I state it to the contrary, the cuts and pastes that I do are expressing my opinions.

Johannes Steiner 10.09.08 at 9:05 pm

I don’t have any problem with your cutting and pasting. It’s the fact that instead of adding meaningful commentary, like I know you are capable of, I’ve read your posts before, you resorted to extensive insulting. But as I have done that before myself, perhaps I should just mind my business.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>