Wednesday, May 4, 2011

"You really, really wouldn't want to play poker with this guy"

That's the conclusion Matthew Norman reaches considering President Obama's performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner after giving the go-ahead on the mission to get Bin Laden.

But no flicker in the eyes hinted at a pending decision behind imminent insomnia, and the first thought on reviewing the gag is that you really, really wouldn't want to play poker with this guy.

Obama is said to be a strong player in the tight-aggressive style, which means that he doesn't play a lot of hands or bluff much; but that when the potential return justifies the risk, he isn't scared to push all his chips in...

He bet the lot – his presidency, re-election chances, and place in history – on what, we may assume, was a virtual coin flip. The odds on the mission's success are unquantifiable, but when his counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, described this as "one of the gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory," he strayed towards understatement. Had it gone wrong, Obama would by now have been measured up for the Jimmy Carter One Term Memorial Shroud. If Bin Laden had escaped and the Navy Seals been killed, his announcement that he had revived al-Qa'ida with its finest propaganda coup since 9/11 would have moonlit as his own political last rites.

It did not go wrong, and so he finally became the President of the United States of America, rather than President of That Chunk Of America That Doesn't Regard A Black Man In The Oval Office As The Cleaner Or An Imposter.

This is so true. For over three years now we've heard that he's a weak appeaser from both the left and the right - on domestic battles from the left and on foreign affairs from the right. And its all based on the fact that we don't see him chest-thumping about his toughness.

Regardless of how you feel about his politics/policies, can we finally look at this man's style from an objective viewpoint and see that strength is not always present in bluster? Sometimes its reflected in thoughtful steely determination.

6 comments:

  1. I've always admired his lack of bluster. Even if I don't agree with him on something, I respect the measured intelligence with which he speaks. That's how it should be. I cringed every time Bush opened his mouth.

    Speaking of which, any thoughts on Bush not going to the Trade Center site with Obama? Seems mighty small and petty, but maybe he's got a dental appointment or something already scheduled.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On another subject altogether, and one which I dare not mention on the Guardian for fear of violating some royal libel law, I have this theory that William is gay and that's what took Kate so long to make up her mind. Worth the trade off? It used to be that women married to gay royals or aristocrats were expected to lead their own, er, lives as long as they were discreet and didn't embarrass the family. (And once they had provided the required heirs; I think in those cases it is the man who is supposed to close his eyes and think of England.)

    My theory is based solely on the fact that the relative William most resembles is his uncle Edward and I have it on the highest authority (a tipsy fellow in a pub somewhere, I remember not, in England) that "everyone knows" Edward is a "poof."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robbie: 'maybe he's got a dental appointment or something'

    Or maybe someone advised him that it wouldn't be to HIS (historical) advantage to highlight how ineffective was his own bin Laden effort, by standing beside the man whose leadership got the job done!

    ReplyDelete
  4. On Bush not showing up...I was just talking about this with a co-worker. My theory is that George simply ran for President to spite the fact that his parents overlooked him (the drunk partier) and assumed it would be Jeb. After a few years in the WH, that motivation didn't give him much to go on and he checked out - leaving it to Cheney to really run the place. Now he has no desire to get back into the muck of it all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robbie. When Royalty was involved the women were expected to stay true at least until they'd born a child [hopefully she dropped a son otherwise she had to keep on trying,] that was legitimately entitled to inherit. Once she'd done her duty then everyone turned a blind eye as long as she was careful. It was generally the men who looked elsewhere for their rumpty pumpty. George 111 was one of the few monarchs from those days that had a happy marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Smartypants: From the start I always thought Bush was totally out of his depth and was put there by big business purely because he could be manipulated.
    After his eight years I still think the same.
    He's a mental midget compared to Obama.

    ReplyDelete

Why fascism wasn't a deal breaker

As the 2024 presidential campaign was winding down, Tucker Carlson gave a speech at a Turning Point rally for Trump in which he compared the...