Skip to main content

But because we humans have an odd fascination with context-free word choice that drives certain narratives, the right wing will now pretend to be outraged about the sentence, "If four Americans get killed in Lybia, it's not optimal", presumably because it highlights—again!—just how horrible and out-of-touch Obama is, goes the right-fueled narrative.  What kind of Commander-in-Chief uses the words "not optimal" to describe a national tragedy?  He didn't:

Transcript from Today's Daily Show

Jon Stewart: "Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.  Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page."

Obama: "Here's what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up."

Any reasonable person with basic grasp of reading and listening comprehension can see that Obama was referring to the administration's communication not being optimal given that four Americans were killed.  As in, "when American lives are lost, we need to do a better (more optimal) job of communicating to Americans what exactly happened" or "We could have done a better job of communicating clearly, given the gravity of the situation".  Not exactly controversial, and not actually a gaffe. Neither Jon Stewart nor Obama was talking about the deaths not being optimal, as RWNJs are conveniently and uncritically (or, in the case of journalists that know better, manipulatively) claiming.

But we now get to spend a day or two defending a new gaffe-that-wasn't, because the media loves the drama, the journalists love the traffic, the (prosecuting) campaign loves the distraction, and the readers (us) love the context-free word choice that pushes a narrative and lets us poke fun at the (prosecuted) other side.

At the cost of sounding the false equivalency bell—and there should be no mistake about it, Republicans and conservative right wingers, when it comes to taken things out of context, are savant exploiters and cut-and-pasters to a degree that we on the left do not measurably approximate—when Mitt Romney said, "...and they brought us whole binders full of women", we recognized it for what it was: a tone-deaf and narrative-affirming political gem that could be used against him for what it symbolized about his innate corporate sexism (the ridiculous claim that it is just so hard to find qualified women in the work force to fill jobs) and about Romney's propensity for lying (the binders story turned out to be demonstrably false).  But we also know that he actually meant, "...binders full of women's resumes".  If he had used those words instead, the episode would probably not have gone viral, and we would have discussed the sexist underpinnings of his statement the way we've been discussing his logically offensive insinuation that single moms are to blame for gun violence: in a way mostly free of humor and sans the pop culture flash.  Yet Romney made the word choice gaffe, and we ran with it, because it was more fun, and the internet needed a new, non-bird toy for the week.  Context-free word choice meets apolitical internet schadenfreude meets liberal talking points.

The difference, though, is that while Romney's "binders" phrase was an offensive idea wrapped in poor wording, Obama's "optimal" phrase was a sane idea wrapped in conversationally legitimate wording:

Offensive idea: I couldn't find qualified women, so I needed a damn panel to go out and find some.
Poor wording: They gave me binders full of women <-- this is a gaffe

Sane idea: We need to do a better job of communicating sequences of events.
Legitimate conversational wording: "Q: Was your communication optimal?  A: No, it was not optimal."

So it It wasn't a gaffe. Jon Stewart asked him a question.  Obama responded in kind.  But in our political bloodsport of Twitter-friendly sound bytes and boldly-defined political division, we now have to defend our man against the temporary onslaught of pretensive rightwing posturing.

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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site