MSNBC Criticizes Obama For Being Too Smart!

[JCady]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25335.html

Pundits who are often wowed by President Barack Obama’s oratorical skills are delivering a decidedly negative verdict on his performance at his health care-dominated press conference Wednesday night.

The major newspapers and cable networks dinged the president for being at once too wonky and too vague, playing defense instead of delivering the push health care legislation needs to move forward on Capitol Hill.

“As a political reporter, I don’t really see what he got out of this thing,” Newsweek’s Howard Fineman said on MSNBC. “I think he seemed a little tired. There was not a lot of news in it. I know that he wants to play his card close to the vest in terms of negotiating with the Hill, but I think for those that wanted him to come out and to declare more specifically and forcefully what he wanted to see in the bill, it was notable more for the absence of that than for the inclusion of it. “

While the White House had built up the press conference as a chance for Obama to reclaim the initiative on health care, many pundits came away wondering what precisely the president had accomplished.

“I was sort of disappointed he didn’t say more. This was a press conference, that seems to me, a lost opportunity,” Juan Williams said on Fox News.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza was not turned off by the detailed approach. In his post-press conference write-up, Cillizza said he felt he was “in a classroom where the students were the American people. Too didactic? It didn't feel that way, but we reserve the right to revisit it upon further reflection.”

MSNBC’s First Read disagreed. In their morning assessment of the presser, NBC’s political team asked, “Honest question: Is there a point when the president knows too much about an issue? He got into the weeds a number of times on a number of different aspects of health care, which is what his diehard supporters love, but might not grab the attention of the average viewer.”

In the major newspapers, analysis of the president’s news conference raised questions about whether Obama’s language was well chosen for a message the White House said was directed at average Americans.

“During much of the hour-long news conference, Obama relied on jargon that Washington insiders embrace but that might leave the typical television viewer mystified,” said the Los Angeles Times, noting the President’s use of the word “incentivize” multiple times during the exchange with reporters.

The New York Times described Obama’s tone as “cerebral” in his attempts to tie policy details to the plight of ordinary citizens.

The Washington Post’s chief political reporter Dan Balz called Obama’s defensiveness “uncharacteristic,” adding that “he was clearly mindful that he has hit a rough patch exactly six months into his presidency and felt the need to justify what his administration has done to deal with a set of monumental problems.”

While most assessments were unenthusiastic, there were at least a few reports that Obama had, at the very least, done no harm.

“Though polls show his popularity in slight decline, Obama did nothing at the news conference — other than preempt or delay some prime-time shows — that would seem potentially harmful to his image,” wrote Washington Post television critic Tom Shales. “About the most justifiable criticism that could likely be made: ‘Barack Obama still seems too good to be true.’"

Slate’s Timothy Noah dinged Obama for his “red pill, blue pill” hypothetical – too reminiscent of the 1999 movie The Matrix – he ultimately remained sanguine about Obama’s prospects for success.

“Such an outcome isn't guaranteed, but it does remain very possible,” Noah wrote. “To achieve it, Obama doesn't have to be The One; he just has to keep his eye on the ball. So far, evidence suggests he's doing exactly that.”

[Zixinus]

I think some people have seen so many stupid presidents that they can't wrestle around the idea of a smart one.

[Oscar Wilde]

Some people WANT the pres to be an everyman. The everyman is stupid, ergo people think a stupid president better represents the people and therefore is a better choice. This view can only be considered retarded of course, since I'd like important decisions to be decided by someone that's actually intelligent.

[Serafina]

Some people WANT the pres to be an everyman. The everyman is stupid, ergo people think a stupid president better represents the people and therefore is a better choice. This view can only be considered retarded of course, since I'd like important decisions to be decided by someone that's actually intelligent.

So, stupid people want the president to be stupid, that he can rule the stupid people better?

Makes sense


At least, they scratched on the surface of a reasonable point:
When giving public speeches, it IS desireable to be understood.

[Simon_Jester]

If a smart politician isn't smart enough to know when he shouldn't get bogged down in details, then his intelligence can become his enemy. As Serafina points out, your presentation has to make sense to people who lack the time, the brains, or both to learn all the details. On top of that, you yourself have to know when not to waste time and mental energy trying to master details that you really ought to delegate. An hour of the head of government's time is a very valuable thing, and there comes a point where Obama (or anyone else) will hit diminishing returns if they try to learn and control more details of how a program operates.

[Davis 51]

I watched the press conference. After the conference, I flipped to Fox Noise out of sheer curiosity. Bill-O and some talking head were talking about how they "couldn't make sense of Obama," his conference was "all over the place," and there are "no details" and Bill-O going "I R SMART WHY DON'T I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS DOING?" leading to some other douchecock talking about how its because Obama speaks in evil liberal coded language for simple people to understand, which is when I changed the channel.

So he gets hit by Fox for not giving enough details and he gets hit by MSNBC for giving too much. Fair and Balanced, indeed.

[General Zod]

I watched the press conference. After the conference, I flipped to Fox Noise out of sheer curiosity. Bill-O and some talking head were talking about how they "couldn't make sense of Obama," his conference was "all over the place," and there are "no details" and Bill-O going "I R SMART WHY DON'T I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS DOING?" leading to some other douchecock talking about how its because Obama speaks in evil liberal coded language for simple people to understand, which is when I changed the channel.

So he gets hit by Fox for not giving enough details and he gets hit by MSNBC for giving too much. Fair and Balanced, indeed.

That kind of tactic is an annoyingly common one by Republitards. "Democrat X holds press conference to give an overview of a plan" "Retard Y blasts him for not giving a detailed bullet-point list of every individual step he plans on using to make the plan a success" Even though the whole fucking point of such conferences is NOT to have their plan put under a microscope.

tl;dr Typical dishonest Rethuglican bullshit.

[SirNitram]

There are three things the media, especially the D.C. media, hate with the fury of ten thousand suns.

1) A democrat who doesn't sell his constituents down the river at the first chance.
2) An intelligent politician.
3) Anything that might require them to touch that awful horribly icky POLICY work. That means dealing with facts!

It's obviously that's why they brought the Gates question. It could muddy the waters so they could fill quota with 'he-said, she-said', and the editors won't yell because it is a VITAL issue. After all, a Black Man said something about another Black Man!