Obama’s Way

September 11, 2012 7:18 PM

"To understand how air-force navigator Tyler Stark ended up in a thornbush in the Libyan desert in March 2011, one must understand what it’s like to be president of the United States—and this president in particular. Hanging around Barack Obama for six months, in the White House, aboard Air Force One, and on the basketball court, Michael Lewis learns the reality of the Nobel Peace Prize winner who sent Stark into combat."
posted by vidur (53 comments total)

Now, standing on the Truman Balcony . . . He motioned to the place from which, last November, a man with a high-powered rifle fired at the White House. Turning, with only the slightest trace of annoyance, Obama pointed to the spot directly behind his head where the bullet struck.

Powerful stuff. I heard this on NPR today, and of course Longform has it up as well.

Thanks for posting.
posted by nostrada at 7:33 PM on September 11, 2012

I have my annoyances about how his first term went, but I'd give my left arm to spend 6 months hanging around Obama and talking to him about stuff. Great article.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 8:06 PM on September 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

MoonOrb - they don't read it in the first place. Unless redstate, drudge or foxnews has a link up.
posted by nostrada at 8:20 PM on September 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

That's a remarkably great article. It makes me feel better about the Libyan intervention. The man must be agonizing over Syria right now. I can't imagine the weight that must have on ones shoulders.
posted by empath at 8:21 PM on September 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

I'd never read his nobel prize acceptance speech.
posted by Chekhovian at 8:27 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

When I read an article like that, I wonder, "What do people who don't like Obama think after they read it?"

Would you like me to find you an old puff piece on GW Bush? Then you can experience yet again what it feels like to read a worshipful and uncritical profile on a president you don't like, as opposed to one you do like.
posted by zipadee at 8:36 PM on September 11, 2012 [7 favorites]

Considering all the drone strikes and the killing of at least one US citizen without a trial (in Yemen/Somalia) I kind of wish he would have never gotten that darned prize.
posted by nostrada at 8:37 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

That was a really great article. Thanks for posting it.
posted by lazaruslong at 8:40 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Was that a puff piece?

I come out of it respecting Obama, sure, but I don't come out of it liking him any more than I did before reading it. That's the case because frankly I think this article captures him as person more than any other article I've read.

He comes out of this article looking like a person caught up in and wrangling with a job that has become more surreal than it was only 30 years ago when Reagan built that porch. It's a story about a kid from Hawaii who became President.

It didn't make me like him any more than I already do. It made me feel tired for him. I just imagine playing a no-holds basketball game for 4 to 8 years without end. I too would relish the opportunity to even imagine sitting on a beach.
posted by sendai sleep master at 8:48 PM on September 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

The argument he had wanted to hear was the case for a more nuanced intervention—and a detailing of the more subtle costs to American interests of allowing the mass slaughter of Libyan civilians. His desire to hear the case raises the obvious question: Why didn’t he just make it himself? “It’s the Heisenberg principle,” he says. “Me asking the question changes the answer. And it also protects my decision-making.”

I know people make a lot of noise about Romney being the guy with consulting background, but this, right here, is a pitch-perfect example of the consulting process. This is how the gig works; you subsume yourself and get others to open up.

Aboard Air Force One, I’d asked him what he would do if granted a day when no one knew who he was and he could do whatever he pleased. How would he spend it? He didn’t even have to think about it:[...]
When he was done, he thought again and said, “And if I had a second day … ” But then the airplane landed, and it was time for us to get off.

“If I were president I think I might keep a list in my head,” I said.

“I do,” he said. “That’s my last piece of advice to you. Keep a list.”

Lovely.

Would you like me to find you an old puff piece on GW Bush? Then you can experience yet again what it feels like to read a worshipful and uncritical profile on a president you don't like, as opposed to one you do like.

That would be great, actually; would be interesting to contrast personality profiles and decision-making skills between presidents.
posted by the cydonian at 8:49 PM on September 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

Would you like me to find you an old puff piece on GW Bush? Then you can experience yet again what it feels like to read a worshipful and uncritical profile on a president you don't like, as opposed to one you do like.

I actually wouldn't mind it. If it had the same rigor with which this was written, I doubt I'd find the same level of respect that I have for Obama, or that it sounds like Obama has for him - though through that lens I'm coming to appreciate that Bush was genuine in his beliefs, which does count for something. A lot, even. But it might be interesting to see if that were the case.

I certainly strongly doubt that Bush had the same regard for the toxicity of today's political process and media. I also doubt that whatever intellectual prowess GW possesses would come across so effectively... but that would be the point of the comparison.

Side note, I come away from this thinking that Bush's perspective was effectively regional - for all his New England roots and heritage, he sees himself as a Texan. Barack comes across as much less provincial.
posted by emmet at 8:50 PM on September 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I kind of wish he would have never gotten that darned prize

You understand, don't you, that he didn't campaign to receive it, or even submit himself. He just woke up one day and was told he'd won it, and even at the time it seemed like a fairly obvious ploy by the committee to constrain him and influence him, rather than to recognize him for anything he'd done.
posted by fatbird at 9:16 PM on September 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

Michael Lewis Gave White House Quote Approval for His Big Vanity Fair Profile via The Atlantic
posted by Rangeboy at 9:21 PM on September 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jesus fucking Christ, people. George Bush's reasoning was complete insanity.

He actually believed god told him to invade Iraq.

What the holy fuck.
posted by roboton666 at 9:22 PM on September 11, 2012 [7 favorites]

He just woke up one day and was told he'd won it, and even at the time it seemed like a fairly obvious ploy by the committee to constrain him and influence him, rather than to recognize him for anything he'd done.

I've always thought of it more as the Nobel Prize For Not Being George W. Bush (see also Jimmy Carter and, to a lesser extent, Harold Pinter).
posted by Etrigan at 9:24 PM on September 11, 2012 [8 favorites]

That was pretty great, and if there were a similar piece that might humanize George Bush for me, much as I continue to loathe the man, I'd be happy to read it.

As an aside, does it strike anyone else as exceedingly odd how lunremarked upon it has been, at least that I have seen, that Ann Romney's mandate at the RNC was to 'humanize' her husband? That it just seems to assume that he is by nature in need of humanizing? Hmmph.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:34 PM on September 11, 2012

My favorite sentence:

the controversy machine is bigger than the reality machine.”

Consume news content with that in mind at all times.
posted by Skygazer at 9:37 PM on September 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

Not a "puff piece" (not that this profile of Obama is one) but from NYT (2004) - Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush
posted by vidur at 9:47 PM on September 11, 2012

I think the books Obama is going to write after he's done with the presidency, are going to be something really special.

That was a pretty extraordinary look into his life. I'm so glad he goes that extra step to look for a better idea. And I wish he could have that leeway, and he should, to apply that nuanced approach to domestic matters without the Republicans simply always needing to shut him down.

If his solutions to foreign emergencies, and issues is any signal, I think the whole country would be much much better off and more sound economically, structurally and so forth.
posted by Skygazer at 9:58 PM on September 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think tonight's events with Netanyahu banging the war drums and the GOP literally lying through their teeth, desperate for anything to grab onto shows us how this man is at a vortex of so many changes--and how critically important it will be to keep him in office.

The President has remained steady through this storm. Romney will write the biggest check possible to Israel and Netanyahu. They must be stopped or we will invade Iran.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Emmet: though through that lens I'm coming to appreciate that Bush was genuine in his beliefs, which does count for something. A lot, even. But it might be interesting to see if that were the case.


IMHO it is most definitely not the case. Issue by issue and challenge by challenge, Bush didn't make the right decisions in the most crucial of moments because he basically optioned out the right to most of his difficult domestic, economic and foreign policy challenges to neoconservatives via neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

And therein lay a huge disconnect, where conditions were changing day by day regarding Al Queda and Iraq and the corruption taking place in Wall Street at the big investment banks, there was no one at the wheel making the day by day nuanced decisions, there were instead broad based initiatives put in motion and rarely corrected via timely feedback.

Of course, there were moments GWB HAD to be the decider, but I can't think of one at the moment he might've got right, other than the idea to let Africa have low cost AIDS medicines...

Other than that, I think there was a level of incompetence based on negligence that was criminal.
posted by Skygazer at 10:09 PM on September 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush

Hmm. I guess that might paint a sympathetic portrait to... well, I don't know to who exactly. Maybe Christians who have more faith than good sense.

Astonishingly, I remember reading that piece 8 years ago when it was first written. Rereading it now just makes me remember how little of think of him, and what an unremittingly terrible and incompetent president he was.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:14 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Such a stark contrast between the Obama way and the Bush way...looking back immthrilled at how much the system mitigated the damage W could have done...it could have been much worse.

Honestly it seems as if Katrina must have been the major turning point that neutered his second term.
posted by Chekhovian at 10:47 PM on September 11, 2012

This is the election of 2004 redux. The GOP noise machine has reached its inevitable end. They were hanging on for dear life as the incumbents then--now they are fighting to preserve that machine from the challenger's spot--a hard road to hoe. To cryptically quote Josh Marshall from those dark days: Viva Boooosh! Viva La Muerte!
posted by Ironmouth at 10:50 PM on September 11, 2012

That was a good piece -- not a puff piece but a sympathetic, human-interest story. One needn't plan to vote for the president to like it or him.
posted by michaelh at 10:50 PM on September 11, 2012

The contrast between this line from the Obama piece...
His desire to hear the case raises the obvious question: Why didn’t he just make it himself? “It’s the Heisenberg principle,” he says. “Me asking the question changes the answer. And it also protects my decision-making.”

And this from the GWB piece that vidur linked to...
"By midyear 2001, a stand-and-deliver rhythm was established. Meetings, large and small, started to take on a scripted quality. Even then, the circle around Bush was tightening. Top officials, from cabinet members on down, were often told when they would speak in Bush's presence, for how long and on what topic. The president would listen without betraying any reaction. Sometimes there would be cross-discussions -- Powell and Rumsfeld, for instance, briefly parrying on an issue -- but the president would rarely prod anyone with direct, informed questions. "

...is stunning, and is entirely demonstrative of both the two Presidents in question and their respective political parties.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 10:57 PM on September 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

Chekovian: Honestly it seems as if Katrina must have been the major turning point that neutered his second term.

That was a crisis that required someone fully at the wheel looking at all the angles and nuance and LEADING as Obama does, and not a remote cold ruthlessly applied all encompassing political dogma from the American Enterprise Institut or an ALEC white paper, and the results were naturally absolutely disastrous.

Maybe that was the point where Bush decided that he needed to be a real decider and not simply an operative furthering the agenda of Crony Capitalism via all those AEI blockheads...

The Bush was almost singularly unequipped for any true contingency it would seem. How long did it take Dubya on 911 to finally get a grip and not have Air Force One flying willy nilly all over the place like a chicken with it's head cut off?
posted by Skygazer at 11:04 PM on September 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Not a "puff piece" (not that this profile of Obama is one) but from NYT (2004) - Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

I still can't believe these fuckwits were really in charge for eight goddamn years.
posted by homunculus at 12:32 AM on September 12, 2012 [3 favorites]

When I read an article like that, I wonder, "What do people who don't like Obama think after they read it?"

A better question is what people who like Obama think of this article after they find out the end product was edited by the White House.

I'm no fan of Romney, but journalism is broke in this country, and pieces like this that portray their subject matter in a flattering way, one reminiscent of Reagan (i.e. the wistful image of the tough President, making tough decisions) do no one any favors. Especially around election time.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:36 AM on September 12, 2012 [5 favorites]

Dubya and Me - Walt Harrington - The American Scholar

This is a good-to-sometimes-excellent friendly profile of Bush and probably the closest equivalent to the Lewis article that I can think of. The author, Walt Harrington, voted against Bush, admitted it to Bush, and yet Bush would still call on him from time to time. The White House balcony again makes an appearance as well.

Here's a quote which gives a bit of an overlap between the two articles:

His [Bush's] only remark about Barack Obama was, as I recall it, “No matter who wins, when he hears what I hear every morning, it will change him.”

I personally despise almost everything the Bush Administration did and yet I had a (rather small) bit of sympathy for him after reading the article.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:21 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

I suppose one need not immediately jump to the conclusion that if the White House edited it, they must've done it to take out that part where Obama says something dumb or racist or nasty, or just to make him look good. They would likely never consent without the authority to veto any content in the final article, and surely had vetted Lewis beforehand; does that mean the article is rubbish?

Sure, it's a politically handy time to publish something that's favourable, but that doesn't mean that we need to immediately jump on it. Perhaps it's because I'm young enough still to be idealistic, but I don't feel that it's possible that, behind the scenes, Obama is a really really bad president running a lousy operation, but gives rise to a human, pretty good portrait like this.

Regardless of whether what it says about Obama's working style and on-the-job focus and principledness is true, man, that is the kind of person I'd like to be, or at least would like to elect to that office.
posted by undue influence at 1:43 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Speaking of Libya: CIA Waterboarding, Qaddafi Collaboration Revealed
posted by homunculus at 1:45 AM on September 12, 2012

As much as I deplore this nonsense of getting quotes cleared before publishing, I'd like to make a distinction between clearing quotes with the White House, and clearing the piece with WH. Seems like Michael Lewis did the former, but not the latter. Still a heavily messaged piece and all that, but not a propaganda piece, if they maintained that distinction.
posted by the cydonian at 4:10 AM on September 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

Mr Cynical is away on vacation but he says this is an easy target and "they won't know any better, anyway."

I have one question. Do you think Obama's team are idiots? Here it is, two months before the USAn Presidential election, an election in which literally hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent and in which (besides many good friends of Mr Cynical) thousands of people have invested a good chunk of their lives. They have absolute control over access to the President and the White House Staff. They can choose the magazine. They can choose the author. They can tell him what to unhear and unsee. And after he's written it they can unsay - perhaps even edit their words. So given the enormously high stakes, given the unprecedented ability to control the origin and content of the material, given the fact that the editors of Vanity Fair and many other publications have been gently fellating the White House's media office for months - given all this, do you really think that the article doesn't paint Barack Obama in precisely the carefully-calculated light that Obama's PR experts recommend?
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:16 AM on September 12, 2012

I've always thought of it more as the Nobel Prize For Not Being George W. Bush (see also Jimmy Carter and, to a lesser extent, Harold Pinter).

Harold Pinter got a Nobel Prize for Not Being Samuel Beckett?
posted by steambadger at 7:19 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's incredible how Obama seeks opinions and information, yet is self-aware that he's trying to ferret out a solution that does not yet exist and cannot exist until someone else comes up with it. To me, that's strong leadership. It would be so easy to be caught within that system of decisions and political rhetoric until your head is underwater, justifying decisions you made simply because you made them (i.e. you are overwhelmed.) Obama has perspective.

Reading about GWB or even Republican punditry reminds me of East of Eden. Adam Trask had long ago decided to love and worship Cathy, to the point where it blinded him to the possibility of any other reality. It's a world in which you're never wrong, and anyone who says you're wrong may as well speak a foreign language.

It's also sad that it seems to be a herculean task to remain human while president.
posted by Turkey Glue at 8:41 AM on September 12, 2012

Obama has perspective.

This, above all else, is why I like him as a leader. He is willing to trade political capital, to take the short-term PR hit, etc., in order to promote the longer term interest. I just hope he wins another term.
posted by Doohickie at 9:54 AM on September 12, 2012

What a terrific read. Thanks.
posted by yoink at 10:00 AM on September 12, 2012

nostrada: Considering all the drone strikes and the killing of at least one US citizen without a trial (in Yemen/Somalia) I kind of wish he would have never gotten that darned prize.

I loved Obama when he was first elected - and still believe he is one of our better presidents in history, although deeply flawed (as are most of us, though our flaws have less impact on others).

And the only decision stupider than giving him the Nobel Prize was him accepting it. An open statement that, as a newly elected president, he felt that many other people in the world had had a greater impact on the important advancement of peace, would have allowed everyone to save face.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:03 AM on September 12, 2012

sendai sleep master: Was that a puff piece?

Yes. The author clearly likes Obama, clearly dislikes Republicans, and makes the President out consistently as a deep-thinking, hard-working, integrity-laden individual.

Whether or not those are all true (and I believe they are), he never delves into Obama's shortcomings at all, really. It's still a PR-worthy piece, even if it's (1) sincere and (2) accurate.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:12 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Etrigan: I've always thought of it more as the Nobel Prize For Not Being George W. Bush (see also Jimmy Carter and, to a lesser extent, Harold Pinter).

You must surely be unaware of the many, many efforts Jimmy Carter has made to bring about more peace in the world. To draw parallels between the Obama prize and Carter's is ridiculous. Here's some reading for you: 1 2 3 4.

Also, I'm unclear on who you think the Nobel committee was thumbing their noses at when they gave the Lit prize to Harold Pinter, but I think the number who believe he deserved it is legion.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:21 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

To draw parallels between the Obama prize and Carter's is ridiculous.

If you don't believe that Carter's prize -- while not undeserved -- was at least partially due to Bush and the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, agitation for war with Iraq and undermining of the Agreed Framework with North Korea, that's fine. We'll never know what happened when the Committee met. But the Peace Prize is an overtly political award, as illustrated by Obama's. Pinter and Paul Krugman were worthy of Nobel Prizes in their field, but so are dozens of other writers and economists. Pinter and Krugman were at least partially elevated by their political activities. If John Kerry had won, I have little doubt that he would have been giving the lecture in ElBaradei's place.
posted by Etrigan at 12:06 PM on September 12, 2012

Whatever his reasons to go to war (or whatever euphemism you want to use) does anyone have the slightest problem that he did it without congress approval and in fact told congress he didn't care if they approved it or not he would do it anyway. And of course also send troops to uganda again without congressional approval?

Yes the war act probably does allow it for a certain time period, but being legal doesn't always make it right. Would it not be best to get approval?

Especially when combined with other incidences of him going around congress and throwing the whole checks/balances out the door.
posted by 2manyusernames at 1:03 PM on September 12, 2012

Libya attack overshadows Vanity Fair's big Obama profile
posted by homunculus at 4:58 PM on September 12, 2012

When I read an article like that, I wonder, "What do people who don't like Obama think after they read it?"

I don't like Obama. Want to know what I think after reading it?

The article made me respect him as a person a scintilla more than I did. I still don't like him and I don't think he is a good president.

But I will vote for him because the alternative is horrifying.
posted by caryatid at 5:34 PM on September 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

him going around congress and throwing the whole checks/balances out the door

Would that he only went around congress more...those shitheads... At this point we would be better served if the house members were selected by lot, Athenian style.
posted by Chekhovian at 7:10 PM on September 12, 2012

He’s kept the desk used by Bush—the one with the secret panel made famous by John-John Kennedy. It had been brought in by Jimmy Car­ter to replace the one with the secret taping system in it, used by Johnson and Nixon. “Is there a taping system in here?” I asked, gazing up at the crown molding.

“No,” he said, then added, “It’d be fun to have a taping system. It’d be wonderful to have a verbatim rec­ord of history.” Obama doesn’t come across as political or calculating, but every now and then it seems to occur to him how something would sound, if repeated out of context and then handed as a weapon to people who wish him ill. “Actually,” he said, “I’ve got to be careful here [about what I say].”

Speaking of taping people: House Approves Sweeping, Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

The measure is sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and the Obama administration has called its passage a top intelligence priority.

posted by homunculus at 10:33 PM on September 12, 2012

2manyusernames: Whatever his reasons to go to war (or whatever euphemism you want to use) does anyone have the slightest problem that he did it without congress approval and in fact told congress he didn't care if they approved it or not he would do it anyway. And of course also send troops to uganda again without congressional approval?

Yes the war act probably does allow it for a certain time period, but being legal doesn't always make it right. Would it not be best to get approval?

Especially when combined with other incidences of him going around congress and throwing the whole checks/balances out the door.

In order to take any of these complaints seriously, you must first prove to me that Obama has exceeded his legal powers in any way greater than previous presidents have (and more specifically, than recent presidents have).

However, the reality is that Obama has not stretched one iota beyond the path of powers circumscribed by his predecessors, with the possible exception of provisions of the Affordable Care Health Act. The proof is simple: there's no credible drive from Republicans to impeach Obama, nor has there been significant curtailing of his actions by the majority-conservative Supreme Court (more conservative today than when they ignored the popular vote and decreed Bush president).
posted by IAmBroom at 11:30 AM on September 13, 2012

I liked the article, but I can see where the critics are coming from. It could easily have been written with a slant that was critical; of ignoring the news to watch ESPN *all the time*, spending an hour a day working out when there is work to be done, making decisions that risked peoples lives on the advice of junior staffers over the counsel of senior advisers, choosing the occasion of a peace prize award to make a case for war.
These things are presented as admirable, but could easily be shown in a harsh light, and if it was W, probably would have raised general condemnation at mefi.
posted by bystander at 1:46 PM on September 13, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama keeps darker secrets than Romney: Obama promised change but has embraced the secrecy doctrines of George W. Bush. Why is Romney the "secretive" one?
posted by homunculus at 2:44 PM on September 14, 2012

IAmBroom: "However, the reality is that Obama has not stretched one iota beyond the path of powers circumscribed by his predecessors, with the possible exception of provisions of the Affordable Care Health Act. The proof is simple: there's no credible drive from Republicans to impeach Obama, nor has there been significant curtailing of his actions by the majority-conservative Supreme Court (more conservative today than when they ignored the popular vote and decreed Bush president)."

Whether Obama has abused his power more than other presidents is immaterial.
I doubt you let your kids use that excuse. My question wasn't based on who has ignored the constitution more. It was just does anyone have any problem with the fact the he (or others) have done so.

Of course there has been no attempts at impeaching Obama. It would never fly even if he did far more egregious actions than he has.

Oh, and they supreme court justices did not "[ignore] the popular vote and decreed Bush president" because they were conservative. They ignored the popular vote because that is the law. Presidents are not elected by popular vote.
posted by 2manyusernames at 2:24 PM on September 16, 2012

2manyusernames: Oh, and they supreme court justices did not "[ignore] the popular vote and decreed Bush president" because they were conservative. They ignored the popular vote because that is the law. Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

Sorry, I spoke too succinctly. They ignored the majority vote IN FLORIDA, when deciding how to allocate the electoral votes. Of course we don't elect presidents by popular vote - that would be some sort of "democracy" insanity! But - the majority of Florida votes were cast for Gore. The SCOTUS ruled that an accurate count of the votes was not desirable, and bestowed the electoral votes on Bush. It's very difficult to believe this would have happened for a liberal candidate... since it didn't.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:32 PM on September 16, 2012

Obama Riding a Lion
posted by homunculus at 6:10 PM on September 24, 2012