Jon Meacham Sucks Hard

Newsweek’s Jon Meacham scored an interview on Air Force One, and all he really got out of it was this one quote:

“The American people, I think, not only have a toleration but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems,” Obama said. “I think one of the biggest mistakes that is made in Washington is this notion you have to dumb down things for the public.”

I love the quote, but what happened to the rest of the interview? Meacham tells us that Obama watched Star Trek to find out why people were comparing him to Spock, and then he tells us:

After a series of questions about what he has learned in his first months in the White House, I asked him whether he would read over a paragraph from his book, The Audacity of Hope, and react to it.

Where are his answers on what he’s learned in the White House? Insofar as Meacham provides those answers, he does it in his own words, giving us gems like this:

What he has learned is that he likes, and enjoys, power—the capacity to shape reality in his image and by his lights—and that he finds crisis defining, bracing and useful. That a president feels suited to power is hardly a startling observation, but that Obama so revels in it—in the understated way Obama revels in anything—confounds the competing popular impressions of his persona. Many of his followers see him as the embodiment of a kind of utopian progressive politics in which the brute application of power is passé, a relic of the ruins of the Age of Bush and Cheney. Many of his critics, meanwhile, think him weak, a crypto-socialist one-worlder who wants to offer rogue nations tea and sympathy.

Maybe next time Obama grants an exclusive interview on Air Force One the reporter can write down his answers and give them to us? If I wanted to read Georgetown pseudo-psychoanalysis I could stick to reading Peggy Noonan. Jon Meacham sucks.

He has the vices of his virtues. His fluency with policy can make him seem abrupt when he feels a meeting is covering ground he already knows. His confidence and self-reliance—honed in a fatherless childhood—sometimes creates the impression of iciness, even to those devoted to his success. His pragmatism and willingness to change his mind when confronted with new information occasionally drives the liberal element of his coalition to distraction.

I thought Meacham interviewed Obama, not some liberal element or people dedicated to his success. Jon Meacham sucks hard.

9 Comments

Alice on May 17, 2009 at 8:40 am

I’ve read that Obama doesn’t suffer fools gladly. So we can probably expect a lot more of that stuff which only an idiot could call a “conversation.”

Mr. Meacham failed to listen to that first quote.

billjpa on May 17, 2009 at 9:02 am

I hope that you aren’t surprised at meachum. He is so full of himself and has been for quite a while. Just another example of the reason that print traditional “news sources” are dying!
Also, the reason you and your fellow bloggers are the future of “the news”!

Phil Perspective on May 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm

You are right. Wasn’t it Meacham who wrote that cover story about religion staging a come back(or was it that religion was going the way of dinosaurs)? I despise MoDo and Little Tommy Friedman .. but I despise Meacham most of all .. I think he’s the most arrogant of the bunch

Ed J on May 17, 2009 at 9:31 am

This part is especially encouraging:

To talk to Obama for the record is to watch–and to be part of, given the nature of the exchange–a performance of psychological and intellectual skill. Most politicians instinctively try to disarm you by establishing a personal connection of some kind, usually with a remark about your recent work or a recollection of the last time you met (both the remark and the recollection having been provided moments before by staff). No matter how aware one is of the artifice of the gesture, though, the natural human impulse is to be flattered on some level–I knew he’d remember, or Well, he may be faking it with everybody else, but I bet he really did like that piece.

Obama, at least in my experience, is different. There may be some small talk, but very little; and there is none of the conventional journalistic flirtation-by-compliment. This is business, time is valuable, so let’s get on with it. When he answers questions, his gaze is most intense at two very different kinds of moments: when he is repeating, for the bazillionth time, an answer about which he has thought deeply, and when there is spontaneous passion on a point sharpened by conversation.

There may be a paucity of direct quotes, but I think Meachum’s observations are valuable.

MNPundit on May 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Except in regard to his dinner buddy, David Brooks.

Errol on May 17, 2009 at 9:45 am

Meacham’s “shape reality in his own image” sounds narcissistic (guess Meacham doesn’t know any non-narcissistic political leaders) – in the reality based community one would say “exert leadership in accordance with his vision”. Would one say about Nelson Mandela “shape reality in his own image”? I don’t think so. Furthermore “in his image” is from Genesis 1, creation of human beings – more of this Obama thinks he’s god nonesense.

Destiny on May 17, 2009 at 11:13 am

http://www.newsweek.com/id/197891/output/print

Love this part about his reaction to Cheney

What’s your reaction to Vice President Cheney’s ongoing [criticism]? He’s not quite twittering your administration [ laughter ] but he’s coming fairly close.

You know, Dick Cheney had a strong perspective about national security. It was tested in the early years of the Bush administration, and I think it resulted in a series of very bad decisions. I think what’s interesting is that, in some ways, Dick Cheney actually lost these arguments inside the Bush administration.

And so he may have won early with Colin Powell and Condi Rice, but over the last two or three years of the Bush administration, I think there was a recognition among Republicans and Bush administration officials that these enhanced interrogation techniques that were being applied–that they had applied early on–were potentially counterproductive; that a posture of never talking to our enemies, of unilateral action, of framing national security only in terms of the application of force, often unilateral–that that wasn’t producing.

And so it’s interesting to me to see the vice president spending so much time trying to vindicate himself and relitigate the last eight years when, as I said, I think, actually, a lot of these arguments were settled even before we took over the White House.

Brendan Skwire on May 17, 2009 at 11:29 am

This:

“The American people, I think, not only have a toleration but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems,” Obama said. “I think one of the biggest mistakes that is made in Washington is this notion you have to dumb down things for the public.”

cannot be reconciled with THIS:

Monday – Obama administration’s letter to Britian threatening to cut off intelligence-sharing if British courts reveal the details of how we tortured British resident Binyam Mohamed;

Tuesday – Promoted to military commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, who was deeply involved in some of the worst abuses of the Bush era;

Wednesday – Announced he was reversing himself and would try to conceal photographic evidence showing widespread detainee abuse — despite the rulings from two separate courts (four federal judges unanimously) that the law compels their disclosure;

Friday – Unveiled his plan to preserve a modified system of military commissions for trying Guantanamo detainees, rather than using our extant-judicial processes for doing so.

I’m sorry, it just can’t. In fact the president is going out of his way to make sure that americans’ “hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems” will not be addressed unless he is dragged kicking and screaming to the table. he’s hiding photographs, leaning on the brits to conceal damaging revelations, and setting our detainees up in a kangaroo court to ensure “victories”.

THAT is NOT change, and while the words are nice, the ACTIONS are what matter. These are not the actions of someone who truly believes in a “hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems”.

sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl, again.

Superpole on May 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm

I get it.. but the use of repug talking points by Obama, the latest being about the “bad apples in the CIA” re: the latest round of torture photos, is not acceptable.

Alice on May 17, 2009 at 8:40 am

I’ve read that Obama doesn’t suffer fools gladly. So we can probably expect a lot more of that stuff which only an idiot could call a “conversation.”

Mr. Meacham failed to listen to that first quote.
billjpa on May 17, 2009 at 9:02 am

I hope that you aren’t surprised at meachum. He is so full of himself and has been for quite a while. Just another example of the reason that print traditional “news sources” are dying!
Also, the reason you and your fellow bloggers are the future of “the news”!
- Phil Perspective on May 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm
  
  You are right. Wasn’t it Meacham who wrote that cover story about religion staging a come back(or was it that religion was going the way of dinosaurs)? I despise MoDo and Little Tommy Friedman .. but I despise Meacham most of all .. I think he’s the most arrogant of the bunch
Ed J on May 17, 2009 at 9:31 am

This part is especially encouraging:

To talk to Obama for the record is to watch–and to be part of, given the nature of the exchange–a performance of psychological and intellectual skill. Most politicians instinctively try to disarm you by establishing a personal connection of some kind, usually with a remark about your recent work or a recollection of the last time you met (both the remark and the recollection having been provided moments before by staff). No matter how aware one is of the artifice of the gesture, though, the natural human impulse is to be flattered on some level–I knew he’d remember, or Well, he may be faking it with everybody else, but I bet he really did like that piece.

Obama, at least in my experience, is different. There may be some small talk, but very little; and there is none of the conventional journalistic flirtation-by-compliment. This is business, time is valuable, so let’s get on with it. When he answers questions, his gaze is most intense at two very different kinds of moments: when he is repeating, for the bazillionth time, an answer about which he has thought deeply, and when there is spontaneous passion on a point sharpened by conversation.

There may be a paucity of direct quotes, but I think Meachum’s observations are valuable.
- MNPundit on May 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm
  
  Except in regard to his dinner buddy, David Brooks.
Errol on May 17, 2009 at 9:45 am

Meacham’s “shape reality in his own image” sounds narcissistic (guess Meacham doesn’t know any non-narcissistic political leaders) – in the reality based community one would say “exert leadership in accordance with his vision”. Would one say about Nelson Mandela “shape reality in his own image”? I don’t think so. Furthermore “in his image” is from Genesis 1, creation of human beings – more of this Obama thinks he’s god nonesense.
Destiny on May 17, 2009 at 11:13 am

http://www.newsweek.com/id/197891/output/print

Love this part about his reaction to Cheney

What’s your reaction to Vice President Cheney’s ongoing [criticism]? He’s not quite twittering your administration [ laughter ] but he’s coming fairly close.

You know, Dick Cheney had a strong perspective about national security. It was tested in the early years of the Bush administration, and I think it resulted in a series of very bad decisions. I think what’s interesting is that, in some ways, Dick Cheney actually lost these arguments inside the Bush administration.

And so he may have won early with Colin Powell and Condi Rice, but over the last two or three years of the Bush administration, I think there was a recognition among Republicans and Bush administration officials that these enhanced interrogation techniques that were being applied–that they had applied early on–were potentially counterproductive; that a posture of never talking to our enemies, of unilateral action, of framing national security only in terms of the application of force, often unilateral–that that wasn’t producing.

And so it’s interesting to me to see the vice president spending so much time trying to vindicate himself and relitigate the last eight years when, as I said, I think, actually, a lot of these arguments were settled even before we took over the White House.
Brendan Skwire on May 17, 2009 at 11:29 am

This:

“The American people, I think, not only have a toleration but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems,” Obama said. “I think one of the biggest mistakes that is made in Washington is this notion you have to dumb down things for the public.”

cannot be reconciled with THIS:

Monday – Obama administration’s letter to Britian threatening to cut off intelligence-sharing if British courts reveal the details of how we tortured British resident Binyam Mohamed;

Tuesday – Promoted to military commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, who was deeply involved in some of the worst abuses of the Bush era;

Wednesday – Announced he was reversing himself and would try to conceal photographic evidence showing widespread detainee abuse — despite the rulings from two separate courts (four federal judges unanimously) that the law compels their disclosure;

Friday – Unveiled his plan to preserve a modified system of military commissions for trying Guantanamo detainees, rather than using our extant-judicial processes for doing so.

I’m sorry, it just can’t. In fact the president is going out of his way to make sure that americans’ “hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems” will not be addressed unless he is dragged kicking and screaming to the table. he’s hiding photographs, leaning on the brits to conceal damaging revelations, and setting our detainees up in a kangaroo court to ensure “victories”.

THAT is NOT change, and while the words are nice, the ACTIONS are what matter. These are not the actions of someone who truly believes in a “hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems”.

sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl, again.
Superpole on May 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm

I get it.. but the use of repug talking points by Obama, the latest being about the “bad apples in the CIA” re: the latest round of torture photos, is not acceptable.

About The Author

BooMan

9 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments