Obama Could Actually Profit from the Attacks

This critically defining passage, in this morning's NY Times, came nestled as but a throwaway dependent clause in the story's mostly unread seventh paragraph: "As critics continue to fault Mr. Obama less for his administration’s overall response to the spill than for what they say has been his own slow and reactive leadership style ..."

It could have been the lede. And in a saner era, it would have been the lede. "Nation's Critics Go Berserk," the headline would have read, with the story then delving into their peculiar dismissiveness of the administration's actual, documentable response versus their frivolous obsession with the president's style.

Today, though, the former is so yesterday -- so factually dull, so emotionally unrewarding. But the latter -- ah, now there's something one can sink one's fangs into; no facts, or even reality, required. Just hawk up some venom and let 'er rip.

That could get you a spot on "Hardball," or make you a star in the blogosphere -- but be warned, first you must carefully suppress and dispatch any historical knowledge you may possess that would threaten the imminence of your outrage; for instance, "critics continue to fault Mr. [Lincoln] less for his administration’s overall response to the [war] than for what they say has been his own slow and reactive leadership style ..."

Yep, poor Abe, he went down as a real failure, though that's probably because his critics were, it has been reasonably argued, correct (largely through limitless hindsight, of course) on both counts.

But, again, let's not muddle things with apt historical analogies and assorted paradoxes of the past. As noted, that sort of thing is immensely unrewarding and could very well only leave your readers or viewers in an uncomprehending haze.

We want venom in our critics, we want outrage and we want transcendent irrationality and we want it now -- and if you've enough of it, your disingenuous, cheap-shot politics may even merit an op-ed slot in USA Today:

"In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts -- federal, state, local, public and private -- not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved...."

That insight was from the amusingly befogged minds of Mitt Romney's ghost writers, arguing that this, Obama has not done.

It put me in mind of an interview I recently saw with film director James Cameron, who, because of his vast underwater contacts, if you will, had previously and famously excoriated the "experts" as "morons" and offered his own (his own experts, that is, not morons). So his experts met with the federal, state, local, public and private experts whom Obama had indeed gathered, and guess what? They were as befuddled as the others; they quickly sent word back to James that he might want to nix the "morons" thing.

But back to the venomous essence of Mitt et al.'s all too representative mind:

"We have become accustomed to [Obama's] management style -- target a scapegoat, assign blame and go on the attack. To win health care legislation, he vilified insurance executives; to escape bankruptcy law for General Motors, he demonized senior lenders; to take the focus from the excesses of government, he castigated business meetings in Las Vegas; and to deflect responsibility for the deepening and lengthening downturn, he blames Wall Street and George W. Bush. But what may make good politics does not make good leadership. And when a crisis is upon us, America wants a leader, not a politician."

Well, that sure leaves us wondering: Yes, but who? Tell us, Mitt. Damn it, don't leave us hanging like that.

I wanted to highlight that last passage, however, not just as yet another example of Mitt's almost unparalleled ooziness, but as an example of how Obama cannot really win, politically, but by so doing, wins politically.

Which is to say, Obama is boxed in, but, for now at least, rather comfortably boxed.

While the right attacks him for inexcusable hostility toward, say, insurance executives and Wall Street types, the "high-profile" left -- that is, the ones appearing on "Hardball" and starring in the blogosphere -- are attacking him mercilessly as corporate executives' best friend.

Yet the high-profile, high-volume left isn't really the left; that crucial bloc -- very roughly defined, since in reality it encompasses many a moderate -- is composed of rank-and-file Democrats who, by and large, still back Obama, as evidenced by the president's rather consistent job-approval ratings in the 50-precent range.

The right's searing, disingenuous attacks have indeed taken their toll on the independent vote, but the attacks are so blitheringly disingenuous they're likely driving as much support toward Obama as against him.

Combine attacks from the dissociative extremes with Obama's reasonably solid middle -- from the disaffected center-right to the still-supportive center-left -- and you know what you get?

Reelection.