Today's NYT makes that common mistake, by playing up Barack Obama's "cool factor." The piece, of course, is merely the latest example of worshiping the calmness and coolness of No Drama Obama
Advertisement
First, it should be noted that, while being overly emotional is never a wise move, being too cool can also be a negative.
In the 1988 presidential debate, Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
Dukakis' passionless, calm, and logical answer was: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."
This, of course, was spoofed on SNL -- and Dukakis went on to lose. So, in Dukakis' case, being "no drama" was a negative...
Of course, you should never count on writers to inject any sort of historical context into a given column. Frankly, many of them don't know history -- even history that is a mere 20 years old (in fairness, at the very end of the column, the writer does note that Winston Churchill was an emotional sort, and also implies that being too calm can backfire).
Still, the big message is that Obama is one cool customer. In truth, though, today's virtue is tomorrow's vice; what works for Obama today might not work for Obama tomorrow.
Advertisement
One note: I don't believe media bias is at play here. I recall several stories that came out about how Bush's style was a refreshing, winning formula. This, of course, was several years ago...
Join the conversation as a VIP Member