Monday, November 09, 2009

Blaming the 'Dithering' Obama

By Robert Parry
November 9, 2009

Despite House passage of the health-care overhaul bill on Saturday night, the word “dithering” is getting attached to President Barack Obama, much as “hubris” was tagged to George W. Bush and “undisciplined” applied to Bill Clinton.

Read on.
Posted by at

6 comments:

William Blum said...

I think that what might be called "dithering" is just one symptom of a broader problem that Obama suffers from. The problem is that the man does not believe strongly in anything except being President of the United States. He's an empty shell of a person. So he's willing to compromise on any issue which doesn't directly threaten his stay in office.
William Blum

Mon Nov 09, 11:19:00 AM 2009
Anonymous said...

People have different styles and often these are learned from experience.

The military teaches people to be decisive and this style of behavior is favored by much of the business world as well. Decisiveness also makes for good television, and in our television culture we have learned to expect it even where it is not so important.

It does seem that decisiveness lends a feeling of confidence and our animal instincts tend to make us have confidence in decisive people. Salesmen must be decisive and sales, of one kind or another, has come to play a big role in our world.

For the military, this emphasis on decisiveness makes quite a lot of sense. In battle there is little time for carefully weighing alternatives and reaching the best solution. For business and for government it makes much less sense.

There are disciplines where decisiveness is not really an advantage. Personally, I don't want to be treated by a doctor or even a dentist who makes a fetish of decisiveness. I want my surgeon to take his time and consider the alternatives; I don't want him (or her) to decisively pull out a scalpel and go to work.

People who train for the sciences are taught to be cautious in reaching decision. In other words they are taught not to be decisive. I suspect this is true for lawyers as well, and as such I suspect that Obama's training is to be cautious in making decisions. This particular aspect of the man may make him a good President but a less good politician.

Mon Nov 09, 04:45:00 PM 2009
sanda said...

"Dithering" "diddling" - maybe and maybe not. Paul Street has a one year overview of Obama's first year on Znet that seems well argued, recently posted.
www.Zcommunicatons.org/znet He sees Obama as the corporate President and has been looking at Obama the politician for several years.

Margaret Kimberly continues harsh critique of "progressives", as do you, on www.blackagendareport.com

Progressives are an "easy" target in a way. Who are these progressives of whom you speak?
Do you mean the "pure" intellectuals, the folks who are not activists?

Phyllis Bennis spoke this morning on "Wake Up Call" on WBAI with
Esther Armah about Obama and his statements on policy pre-President
www.wbai.org Archived free for 90 days. Disclosure: I am actively supporting the "undo the coup" movement that has occured at WBAI (and started from the top, Pacifica Radio Network with Local Station Board new majority as of around Jan, 2009. See
www.takebackwbai.org for good Ques. & Ans., "latest news", videos, history and related websites listed as "friendly".

Pacifica Radio Network is the oldest community listener sponsored radio in the US (begun with Berkeley's station KPFA, and then WBAI). There's a crisis in media - to state the obvious.

Getting news that is accurate is vital. Independent media, as Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow points out often (and the show started on WBAI - I am an "original" listener), is so important that it can't be said too often to support it.

Mon Nov 09, 04:49:00 PM 2009
sanda said...

Phyllis Bennis was being interviewed by Esther Armah, on Obama's policy lack of change from Bush vs how he spoke pre-president in re the Middle East, particularly Israel, Gaza and the Occupied Territories.

Mon Nov 09, 04:52:00 PM 2009
Morton Kurzweil said...

Dithering suggests that Obama is irresolute. Diddled infers that he is being jiggled, jerked this way and that.
The problem is that Obama believes that dithering and diddling is the best way to govern. He is a constitutional lawyer who knows the law but hasn't the least understanding of its strengths as a document of civil liberties or its fragility when it is interpreted by mob rule.
As a constitutional lawyer Obama has been trained in the art of persuasion. mediation, manipulation, and mitigation, none of which has prepared him to develop values and standards for the universal application of law and the defense of liberties.
The first amendment recognized the fundamental right of all to think, say, publish, and believe any idiotic thought, ant perverse notion, or any wise statement simply because no government could interfere with such bloggery. That's why it is referred to a 'separation of church and state'.
When such personal special interests become a standard for the debate on national law it is the responsibility of the president that mediation which may weaken the authority of the people, their security, or general welfare be rejected outright and a defense of the people be made.
We have had presidents who diddled, with shaking knees and stained breeches. history has not been kind.

Tue Nov 10, 10:59:00 AM 2009
Morton Kurzweil said...

Dithering suggests that Obama is irresolute. Diddled infers that he is being jiggled, jerked this way and that.
The problem is that Obama believes that dithering and diddling is the best way to govern. He is a constitutional lawyer who knows the law but hasn't the least understanding of its strengths as a document of civil liberties or its fragility when it is interpreted by mob rule.
As a constitutional lawyer Obama has been trained in the art of persuasion. mediation, manipulation, and mitigation, none of which has prepared him to develop values and standards for the universal application of law and the defense of liberties.
The first amendment recognized the fundamental right of all to think, say, publish, and believe any idiotic thought, ant perverse notion, or any wise statement simply because no government could interfere with such bloggery. That's why it is referred to a 'separation of church and state'.
When such personal special interests become a standard for the debate on national law it is the responsibility of the president that mediation which may weaken the authority of the people, their security, or general welfare be rejected outright and a defense of the people be made.
We have had presidents who diddled, with shaking knees and stained breeches. history has not been kind.

Tue Nov 10, 10:59:00 AM 2009

Post a Comment