I took some notes on yesterday's press conference, and here's what I thought:
The tone: Out the gate, I was impressed with the way the president addressed the press and the nation. He was matter-of-fact in his opening remarks, and remained very pointed throughout the Q and A. I love that Obama is willing to debate philosophy and theory when it comes to...just about everything, and I enjoy hearing him express his thoughts. But sometimes, the "you know, well, look..." approach is not as effective as the philosophically confident bullet point framing that he provided yesterday. He was very clear that he was unhappy with having to compromise, and that his positions on tax cuts has NOT changed, but he is dead serious about the task at hand (unlike many politicians and almost everyone in the MSM.) I wasn’t looking at the screen during much of the conference, but when I was listening, I detected the strength in Obama’s voice, the rising anger and passion at certain moments, and the silence and uncomfortable mumbling that came from the press corps throughout. At one point, I say Chuck Todd giggling in his seat, and I half expected the president to come down and thump him up side his head and whisper to him through clenched teeth to pay attention.
Calling them out for what they are: The hostage-takers analogy was strong, explicit, and perfect for the situation. I am glad that his used this direct language to describe what has been going on in this country for years. Actually, Obama has used similar analogies in the past, but I often feel like I’m one of the only ones paying attention. Way back at the beginning of his presidency, he went on Jay Leno’s show and compared the banking system to suicide bombers with financial "bombs strapped to their chests." Of course, this was overshadowed by the "Special Olympics" nontroversy. I am intrigued as to why so many in the media and the Democratic congress either ignored the president’s exposing of the GOP yesterday, or tried to dismiss it as some form of "triangulation" since he "attacked" the left too. Some call it triangulation, I refer to it as what it is: calling bullshite.
The low points: Yes, there were a couple. "I take John Boehner at his word." No. Please stop. I know that he has to attempt to remain civil toward the GOP to keep them from "killing" their hostages, but I think that it is time to (publicly) stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. He took a bold step in that direction with the "hostage" analogy, but then stepped backward into granting them a scrap of legitimacy by suggesting that they’ll see the error of their ways after a "healthy debate." Sorry but terrorists/hostage takers don’t do healthy debate. If it were not for the strength of the last part of the Q and A, these comments may have knocked the President’s grade down from A to B, but overall, these little missteps (including the "many lines in the sand" retort) were all but forgotten as the presser came to its great conclusion.
The Last Question: A tour de force. This was about as close to the spirit of the "More Perfect Union" speech of 2008 as Obama has come since then. Rather than quoting the whole thing, I suggest everyone read the transcript AND watch the video. President Obama literally schooled them on the difference between idealism and pragmatism, and how the two are not mutually exclusive. He said what many of us have been trying to say to the so-called "professional left" about stopping to see the forest from the trees. The response over the past 24 hours has been intense but predictable. As the saying goes, "a hit dog will holler." The ones hollering the loudest are the same ones who opine about the world only in terms of some Utopian ideal instead of taking on the world as it is in reality, right now. The reason they are screaming so loud is because the president, by directly calling them out, is impeding on their fantasy state. It reminds me of that scene from "A Beautiful Mind" when John Nash’s top secret world comes crashing down thanks to his wife and doctors.
I’m glad that PBO hit back directly at those who like to deal in the abstract and hold up their fantasy of history as fact. That’s why so many love dead heroes like FDR, JFK, etc. Dead men tell no tales. FDR compromised a HELL of a lot in order to work with the Republicans as well as the Dixiecrats within his own so-called super majority. If FDR, JFK, or any number of historical figures were alive today, they’d be faced with the same set of choices: live with (frustratingly) slow but steady progress or die (metaphorically) in a blaze of glory and be hailed a martyr while NO progress is made. The latter is what today’s ideological extremists want. And they’re mad that Obama won’t be their martyr. Unlike so many greats from the past who shone bright and burnt out fast, Obama wants to be around to write his own story. President Obama knows our history, and he also knows what he wants our future to be. Will the plan be a success? Not sure. In fact, I’m not sure that it won’t be killed in the Senate. But the president made his intentions clear and his intentions are for what is best for the overwhelming majority of Americans.