Skip to main content

Are we just pissed off that Mr Incredible, Jesus, the Anointed One, The One, Superman, is incapable of stopping a little ol' oil leak one mile under the ocean. OR are we just trying to come to grips with the fact that Man (Humans) can really F**k it up every once in awhile and there's not much we can do about it?

Pundits, specifically cable pundits and bloggers are all a tizzy because the President had what they call a terrible speech, Tuesday. However, not one gives any specific advice on what the President is Not doing.

We get questions like "He is relying too much on BP for answers", probably the most legitimate question but who else is going to solve the issue of the leak, the military, some government agency?

BP is the only entity that will ultimately solve this issue, PERIOD! So the President has no choice but to, trust but verify, what BP is telling the administration. To my knowledge there is no SWAT team-like, para-military unit, on hand and ready to cap an oil spill one mile under the ocean.

Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, I just don't get what they are wanting from the President. They are criticizing him for what not stopping the leak? Not telling the American people what they wanted to hear, not having a plan to stop the leak? Not enough emotion?

BTW, the President does have a plan to stop the leak, its called the BP relief well digging operation, that BP says will be concluded in August.

Matthews is down on the Palin level when he says the president needs to stop relying on smart people and get someone in charge who knows what they are doing! WTF is he talking about? Who the hell on this planet knows how to stop an oil leak of this magnitude in this depth of water... Answer: NO ONE!

There is an old cliche, when you are in a hole stop digging...Most disappointing and unfortunate was Rachel's sad commentary on what she would say if she were President. The problem is, she is not the President and doesn't carry the weight of the Gulf, nation, and the people affected by this tragedy on her shoulders. So Rachel trying to IMO justify her criticism with this faux presidential speech was too cute by a half.

Reporters, talking heads, and pundits have to realize that the President carries the heavy burden of decision making that has consequences. Real people that are being affected by this catastrophe families of the dead oil rig workers, people who own shrimp boats, the bait shop guy, and the trinket seller are all out of work or have been materially affected in a negative way. The President alone carries the burden of being ACCOUNTABLE for their hurt. Accountable, not in the context of liability but accountable for "taking the thorn out of the Lion's paw", in the sense that he knows what needs to be done, but there are no good options to solve it.

Now we have Keith Olbermann upset at the backlash from his criticism saying that he is leaving the DKos community. Dude c'mon a little heat and you run? Mr. Olbermann, if you multiply that pressure and criticism by a thousand you probably get an idea of the pressure the real President is under.

I really believe that there is a huge disconnect with how difficult people perceive the office of president to be. I think some think that he is some type of monarch or supreme entity that can order different branches of government to his will.

Howard Kurtz,'s Media Notes, says what more can the President do?

As someone who thought the speech wasn't all that bad, I ask this question: What was Obama supposed to do?

If he had been less upbeat about the future, he would have been criticized for being too pessimistic and dragging everyone down.

If he had attacked BP more vigorously, he would have drawn flak for being anti-business.

If he had raised his voice and banged the desk, he would have been called too angry.

If he had failed to talk about an energy plan for the future, he would have been chided for having no vision.

If he had laid out what he wants in an environmental bill, he would have been faulted for boring the country with legislative details.

Surprisingly. Kurtz points out that a CONSERVATIVE, yes Satin himself gave the president more than passing grades with his oval office speech.

Some kind words from an unexpected conservative corner,NYT columnist Ross Douthat:

"Nobody liked it. Well, of course nobody liked it: Until the oil well stops belching crude into the Gulf of Mexico, there's nothing that the president of the United States can say about the crisis that will make anyone feel better about it. So maybe the speech shouldn't have been given at all -- except that it had to be given, because for weeks and weeks the White House has been pilloried by the cult of the presidency's true believers (and the occasional opportunist) for not doing enough about the spill, not talking tough enough or acting engaged enough or something, anything, whatever, just do something, Mr. President! And so the White House did what White Houses do, and especially White Houses with a lot of confidence in their occupant's oratorical powers: They scheduled a prime-time address, and hoped for the best.

"Given this impossible context, I thought the speech was reasonably well-crafted."

There's the headline: Obama Fails to Accomplish Mission Impossible.

My emphaisis

Conservatives and Republicans seeking to exploit this politically stepped all over themselves by criticizing the President for working out a deal with BP to setup a $20 billion slush fund.


Here and here

Then Texas Rep Joe Barton really stepped in it by apologizing to BP, WTF?

Now Barton feeling the heat from other Republicans and under threat of being asked to resign his leadership post on the Energy and Commerce Committee, issued this non-apology, apology.

Like I said above, in the ironies of ironies, the conservative Ross Douthat has captured the essence of the President's problem.

Obama continues to fail at Mission Impossible

Originally posted to vinkeith on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 01:53 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  David Kroning II will be here soon to tell you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Captain Sham, jsfox, FiredUpInCA

    that Bob Johnson will be here soon.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 01:57:22 PM PDT

  •  The bulk of this diary serves no purpose (0+ / 0-)

    other than to keep the meta going.

    Nothing will be said, discussed or argued that hasn't been done so before.

    And Bartok is already being discussed in multiple diaries.

    Dean would, of course, become DNC Chair over Rahmbo's dead body. I guess it would be a two-fer.

    by EvilPaula on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 02:11:02 PM PDT

  •  I think the people who didn't watch the speech (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nickrud, FiredUpInCA

    understand its relevance more than those who did.  Because I keep hearing about The Speech.  And I think, wow, so Obama was giving a speech which would either purify the bee-peed upon waters of the Gulf or would be a major fail.  What a speech!  Such pressure!

    Under the delusion that the problem was bigger than one speech, I skipped it-- and the commentary.  But now it's starting to come together-- as usual, the way people reacted more than what they reacted to.

    And .... WTF, Rachel Maddow really gave her own fake-Presidential speech?  Thanks for the TPM link.  Because that is just lame.  It's one thing to criticize the President's speech in a quick soundbite before a Cialis commercial.  It's quite another to give an I'm-So-Much-Smarter-And-More-In-Touch-Than-The-Prez fake speech on the TV machine, as if anyone speaking on the TV machine could be President.  What would the guy in the Cialis commercial have said in his speech?

    So, again, those who skipped the speech-- the real one and the wanna-be one-- are probably better off, because it's not like we're uninformed or unconcerned.  The oil spill is a separate event from the media treatment of it.

    This helps.

  •  Some critics remind me of Herod ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Futuristic Dreamer, vinkeith
    ... from Jesus Christ Superstar (as you reminded me in your opening line):

    "Prove to me that you're divine; change my water into wine.
    That's all you need do, then I'll know it's all true...

    Prove to me that you're no fool; walk across my swimming pool.
    If you do that for me, then I'll let you go free. ...

    I only ask what I'd ask any superstar.
    What is it that you have got that puts you where you are.
    I am waiting, yes I'm a captive fan.
    I'm dying to be shown that you are not just any man."

    They really do sound a lot like this sometimes. Alas, Obama is just a man, and a politician at that.

  •  good point... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the next thing you know, the Republicans will be donating a deep-sea diving outfit to Obama and demanding that he go down there himself and fix the problems.

  •  Only one quibble (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Conservatives and Republicans seeking to exploit this politically stepped all over themselves by criticizing the President for working out a deal with BP to setup a $20 billion slush fund.

    I like and tipped your diary but it would be great if you called the $20 billion an escrow account, rather than a slush fund because of the historical connotation of that phrase.

    Slush fund is a colloquial term which has come to mean an auxiliary monetary account or a reserve fund.

    However, the term has special meaning within a context of corrupt (including but not limited to) political dealings by governments, large corporations or other bodies and individuals. Slush funds can have particular elements of illegality, illegitimacy, or secrecy in regard to the use of this money and the means by which the funds were acquired.

    Political dealings with slush funds tend to create suspicions of quid pro quo (buying political favors), and can be viewed on the surface as corrupt and subversive of the democratic process. For example, Richard Nixon's famed "Checkers speech" of 1952 was a successful effort to dispel a scandal concerning a rumored slush fund of campaign contributions.

  •  to me, Obama was never 'divine,' et al... (0+ / 0-)

    I did believe him to be smart and capable of recognizing opportunities when presented. as POTUS, with the ability to assemble the wisest (not just smartest or most informed or from the "best" schools) minds in America, I find him sadly lacking.
    But the most disappointing is his failure to grasp the monumental opportunties presented.  
    I was ecstatic that bush/rethugs failed so utterly to recognize and take action on the once-in-a-century(or more) opportunity of 9/11,  Fortunately, they were only interested in money and power.
    Will Obama rise to the occasions he is facing?  Nothing to date indicates he will, or even can.
    And that goes for almost the entire dummocrat party.

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 04:31:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site