Have You Noticed How We're Discussing Fraud Now?
What Kathy Hochul Is Doing Is Only Putting the Screws American Workers in...
The Epic Great Lakes Smash-and-Grab Got Exposed by a YouTuber. And the Libs...
What Do You Notice About All These Stories About Somali Fraud in the...
AG Bondi Announces Indictments in Minnesota Somali Fraud Fiasco
Jasmine Crockett: Fake Progressive Hero of the Year
Peter Navarro's Book Is a Raw Retelling of His Experience in Prison
Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt
Trump’s Supply-Side Policies Spark High Growth and Low Inflation
2025 at the Fellowship: A Year of Impact
I Agree With Pope Leo About Gaza
Nonprofits Don’t Deserve Trust, They Earn It
In 2025, Climate Alarmism Bit the Dust As Socialism Rose From the Ashes
Uncle Sam Schools Us on New Year’s Resolutions
Netanyahu: Trump Will Receive Israel's Top Award
Tipsheet

Barack Obama, Bully

David Remnick's piece in The New Yorker, attempting to "understand" Obama's debate defeat, begins thusly:

When Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School, he was never known as a particularly good debater. In class, if he thought that a fellow student had said something foolish, he showed no forensic bloodlust. He did not go out of his way to defeat someone in argument; instead he tried, always with a certain decorous courtesy, to try to persuade, to reframe his interlocutor’s view, to signal his understanding while disagreeing. Obama became president of the law review—the first African-American to do so—but he won as a voice of conciliation. He avoided the Ames Moot Court Competition, where near contemporaries like Cass Sunstein, Deval Patrick, and Kathleen Sullivan made their names.

Advertisement


It is amusing to see Obama supporters try to spin these facts (all true except the part about Obama winning the Review presidency as a "voice of conciliation" -- he won boosted by conservatives, who saw him as the lesser of two evils, given the two finalists for the post) to justify the President's poor debate performance.

But as someone who knew Obama in law school, and now has observed his presidency, his avoidance of debate does seem to conform to a pattern.  It has nothing to do with a gentlemanly or conciliatory reluctance to be aggressive.  Rather, it has everything to do with a reluctance to be aggressive when his opponent ispresent -- where he can experience some push back from the person he's demonizing, and where his lack of preparation or knowledge can reveal him as foolish. (Hence, perhaps, the "decorous courtesy" in face to face encounters, where discourtesy might prompt a more vigorous blowback.)

Think about it.  There's never seen such a trash-talking campaigner -- one who accuses his opponent of lying, who allows his campaign to call Romney a murderer and a felon, one who calls Americans with whom he disagrees "fat cats," or accuses doctors of performing unnecessary surgeries.  He has no problem going after Romney the day after the debate, when he's no longer there face-to-face, and when Obama's trusty teleprompter is back.  In fact, President Obama is one of the least gentlemanly and most uncivil men to occupy the Oval Office -- certainly publicly (Richard Nixon's private utterances put him in the running, too).

Advertisement

Notice that the only time Obama apparently shrinks from throwing a punch is when his opponent can punch back.  That's not a guy who's just too "conciliatory" to get down and dirty -- that's a guy who's afraid to get down and dirty when it means he might have to suffer the consequences.

In my book, that's what's known as a "bully" -- full of big talk in the locker room (or on Letterman) . . . but considerably less cocky when he actually has to address his opponent face to face, unprotected by the friendly aid of the MSM.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement