MAGAZINE: "After the Great Recession: An interview with President Obama," by David Leonhardt, New York Times, 3 May 2009.
I dare anybody to read this and not be impressed with the man's intelligence.
I know that every time I compliment Obama so, some suspect my "brown nosing" is designed to win me some job.
Hilariously untrue, I can only laugh in reply.
I simply could not afford to work for the government right now. The opportunity costs alone mandate I stay with Steve and Enterra for years to come, because we're just beginning to scratch the lucrative surface of Development-in-a-Box™, which to me is more important in shrinking the Gap than anything I could possibly do in government.
I compliment the man so because I'm just so G.D. relieved.
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
Hard to argue with "ruthless pragmatism"; Something BHO and you both possess. And my GOP lost when it wed itself to the religous right.
Posted by Thomas Hommes | May 19, 2009 11:50 AM
I am continually impressed with President Obama's depth on each issue. Specifically, his tenacity for vetting issues, both in agreement and disagreement arguments, is particularly satisfying in that critical thinking is driving decision making. The end-of-life discussion, while distinctly relevant and current to our President, left me quite uncomfortable with the role of the individual versus the role of government in determining care selection and methods--tough issue which will require serious minds to reconcile. V/R
Posted by Bo McGowan | May 20, 2009 4:33 AM
I've been looking for serious material from the president to support the claims of his superior capability, but I must say finding analysis of the medical issues explained through stories of perscription costs and treatment for terminally ill patients left me short. And I likewise looked for revealing economic explainations but read only about meetings with lots of economists. When I finished the article on a note of how well the president felt as he went to sleep at night as some indicator of how things are going, I must say it gives me little comfort.
The evidence of Obama's performance would be better if we had some written materials instead of talks. Perhaps he could expound on a few more credible examples for the medical field. Pill and treatment costs are symptoms, not root causes.
What's more clear is that Obama, like most presidents, is a politican, not an academic. He advanced into the political sphere on the support of a political organization in Chicago, and appointed staff from that group. The sponsorship of that organization is what attracted national democratic party support, and make it possible for Obama's style to be seen; otherwise the organization to operate the Internet sites and grassroots marketing would not take shape.
Compare Obama's case to your own, Dr. Barnett. You have lots more substance to offer and work very hard to communicate it. But it takes some sponsorship group to raise an individual above the competition into a role where he/she is selectable for national office. The sponsor is the thing, then the message can be delivered. Clearly Obama's sponsors who decided that they would position him as their messenger are the important agent. Wish we knew more about them.
Posted by Seth Pillsbury | May 20, 2009 7:49 AM