Last night while appearing on the Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, President Obama should have considered how to phrase his feelings on the deaths of four Americans in Libya a bit more carefully. Here is the exchange in full context:
Stewart: I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.
Obama: Here’s what I’ll say: If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.
“Not optimal” is, obviously, an understatement, when discussing the deaths of four Americans, including the first American ambassador to die in the line of duty since 1979. It’s clear from the context of the interview, however, that the president is using Stewart’s phrase to make clear that he agrees that what happened in Benghazi on September 11 of this year was unacceptable.
What this exchange showcases, however, is the lack of scrutiny Obama’s gaffes seem to elicit from the media.
The media narrative for this campaign has, in large part, become set by the talking points of the Obama campaign and young, liberal Tumblr creators. The latest Romney “gaffe” has become, as Alana mentioned earlier, an absolutely exhausting display of liberal faux-outrage, a desperate attempt to drag down Romney’s soaring poll numbers. The media has had an incredible ability to beat to death any real or imagined Romney gaffes while ignoring far more egregious ones from President Obama.
This media focus solely on gaffes, however, may end up hurting the Obama campaign in the long run. The Romney campaign is forced to set its messaging and imaging as precisely as possible, focusing on incredibly minor details in order to avoid a media firestorm. The Romney team knows that any minor misstep is a potential catastrophe, while the Obama campaign has the security in knowing that they abide by a different set of rules. Romney joked about the double-standard last night at the Al Smith dinner, telling the crowd: “And I’ve already seen early reports from tonight’s dinner, headline; “Obama Embraced by Catholics. Romney Dines with Rich People.”
Does this mean that during Monday’s foreign policy debate Romney should mention this Obama statement for an American public that hasn’t heard about “not optimal” in the mainstream media? In a word: No. The Romney campaign has spent the time since the debates began focusing on real issues, not binders and Big Bird. Romney’s success since the first debate can largely be attributed to the fact that before this, Americans had only passing glimpses at the Republican nominee. The night of the first debate many voters realized, for the first time, that Romney is more than a rich, robotic white male. During the first debate he unquestionably performed better than President Obama, and during the second, on the issue that matters to most voters most, the economy, Romney again appeared more capable according to viewer polls. The media’s attempts to paint a caricature of Romney post-debates will certainly be met with far less success than earlier this summer, when Democratic attacks on a “War on Women” actually gained traction among voters, especially females. Now that the American people have seen the candidates speak unfiltered, they understand just what an exaggeration Romney’s supposed gaffes on Big Bird and binders truly are. Only one of the men on stage is running a presidential campaign. The other is, at best, running for student council.
Smug bastard
Romney sure is. Just watch the way he smiles when he lies — e.g., My plan takes care of those without insurance. And how he turns 180 like a weather vane whenever the political wind changes direction — e.g., gun control, abortion, etc., etc., and denies his own words after saying that the only problem with them was that they weren't stated elegantly. His GOPer opponents were right when they latched onto the "Etch-A-Sketch" Candidate moniker provided by Mitt's own campaign manager. Smug bastard? Yes. But worse, Mitt is a man without a core. And no amount of well rehearsed "zingers" makes up for that. n nAnd btw, if you actually watched Jon Stewart — and I hope you do — you'd know that Obama's response was said ironically, as a pointed critique of Stewart's use of the word "optimal" to discuss such a tragic occurrence.
Regardless, you can easily put "Obama" in your post everywhere you have "Romney" and it is just as true, if not moreso. ALL politicians are liars and it's really just a matter of deciding which one tells you the lies YOU want to hear. Watching people paint themselves into a corner defending one liar over another liar is kind of funny until it becomes pathetic. n nYour point re: The Daily Show is very true and it's just as ridiculous to watch conservatives get all riled up by taking something out of context as it is to watch Obama and crew turn Big Bird and birth control into major campaign issues. n nIf the media were really doing it's job, it would be holding both candidates accountable for their gaffes and misrepresentations BUT that is clearly not the case.
Obama is just so great, isn't he HillelA? I think they should make him grand poobah of water buffalo's lodge.
I don't know, Hillel. I didn't hear it "ironically, as a pointed critique…" Are some conservatives making too big a deal out of it? Probably – but you do have to wonder. What is he doing on that show, first of all? Seriously – this close to an election, with plenty of serious things to be discussing in serious formats, and he's on Stewart's show? Give me a break. And how would other presidents have reacted? I have a hard time seeing Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton, Reagan or Carter falling into that trap, not least because they, you know, probably really would have cared about the lives lost. Obama, it seems to me, doesn't. nAs for the accusation that Romney is a man without a core – I think that is one of the most laughable statements I have read about him. Whatever else he may be in your opinion, the man is nothing but core. He knows his values and lives them, and they are values we can all appreciate and would do well to emulate. As a politician he inevitably vacillates on some issues, and it is certainly fair game for his opponents to point that out. But to say he has no core? That's simply ridiculous. nBesides, your guy is worse than even the moister you describe above. Go back and read his closing comments at the debate the other night, or listen to his earlier paean to increased domestic gas and oil production. Pot, meet kettle.
And today Durbin compares the murders to a football game. (Since he is a sophisticated liberal, I suppose he means soccer, right Hillel?) And Van Jones – a 9/11 Truther, mind you, is on Meet the Press or something reminding us what a towering figure Obama is in the field of foreign policy. That's why Republicans are politicizing Benghazi. Or whatever. Your attempts to support the Pres are undermined by his most committed minions, who seem less than concerned about the lives lost. And yes, I know we agree that these two men are idiots, but then why are they so prominent in your party? nAd Obama might say, they are not optimal.
I agree that "not optimal" should NOT be mentioned by Romney nor Ryan. nWhy? I watched Jon Stewart last night, and only noticed that Obama used same phrase in response. I was far more focussed on the rest of the interview. nThen I went back online to see analysis, but the coverage was all about the Al Smith dinner, so I watched both candidate's remarks. Romney was amazing – genuine humour. Obama knew he was bombing as he forced himself to tell his not funny jokes. nThen I checked email, and a friend's title was "Not optimal?" It still took me an hour before I realized those words had been said on the Daily Show. n nForeign Policy debate is Romney's big chance to be presidential, not dig down into the word weeds. n ndisclosure: I was not going to vote for either candidate, but Romney has managed to win my vote over the past six weeks. He used to make me so tense. Now, his enthusiasm and optimism are either real, or Clint Eastwood has been directing a hidden talent.
"Obama Embraced by Catholics. Romney Dies with Rich People.” n nnow that really WOULD be a strange headline! n nyou may want to fix this.
LOL
At least our Choomer in Chief didn't call it " a real buzz-kill"…
President Tuvak.
When Jon Stewart first used the phrase "not optimal", he was referring not to the murders, but instead the administration's inadequate and misleading explanation of how they took place. It was Obama, trying to be hip and cool, who applied Stewart's phrase to the murders themselves. It was inappropriate and insensitive, but par for the course from a president more concerned with being a celebrity than a leader.
nThis comment from Obama really upsets me… If I was a family member of the people that were killed I would be furious. This is totally unacceptable.
That's one very powerful ad.
@Hillel, did you hear the audience laughing when Barry-boy counterpointed Stewart's unfortunate choice of word? nI did! nHe thought he had made a point; they thought he had made a joke! nTHAT"S an Obamabot for you! nPS Obviously 4 dead Americans killed by freedom fighters is not optimal…I don't even know what the hell that MEANS! NOT Optimal for what, or for whom? nAnother sans-teleprompter moment for the addled brain in Barry-boy?
Well, elixelx, we missed the ironical nature of the comment. The One, you see, was stomping Stewart for being blasphemous. nObama and Hillel are way too sophisticated for us rubes. nThe good news: the arrogant disdain with which liberals (like Hillel) hold most of their fellow Americans is becoming obvious to more and more people.
Here is what I'll say; Obama as president is not optimal.