Re: Obama abdicates to Bill Clinton, lunacy

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, pcg wrote:
> He had no "duty," ceremonial or otherwise, to stand there and take 
> questions.

True, perhaps (it was his choice, not theirs, that he be in the room in 
the first place, no?), but he did have the duty to be presidential -- 
which, among other things, means projecting an image of yourself as the 
man in charge, not abdicating the job to someone else.

Like it or not, being president does *not* mean that you get to do 
whatever the hell you want without any concern for social niceties etc.

> As far as "etiquette" goes, I really, really, *really* don't give a 
> sh!t . . .

And that's why you're not president.  Obama might not give a shit about 
etiquette either, but he compensates through the sheer force of his 
vanity.  Sometimes the public plays along and bends to his will -- but at 
other times, such as now, they don't.

> I've had quite enough of that routine, and while the President ducking 
> out of a press conference early to hang with his wife isn't exactly a 
> revolution, I can't fathom why anyone would care.

Nobody cares that he called it short.  What they care about is that he let 
someone else play the presidential role in his place.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot