October 6, 2009--Obama At Balthazar
Balthazar is still one of downtown’s most popular restaurants. When it opened about 12 years ago it was the hottest place in town. Reservations for all but those on the VIP list were almost impossible to obtain. Everyone who was everyone flocked to It-restaurateur Keith McNally’s latest. Not only was it a scene where the beautiful people came to be seen but the food was (and is) terrific and fairly priced.
So when Balthazar began to serve continental breakfast a year or so after it opened, Rona and I began to go there for our morning coffee and to meet with a growing group of “regulars” who quickly became good friends. It’s a terrific place—still is—with lots of semi-authentic French bistro atmosphere and savory fare.
Caffeinated conversations in the morning ranged widely from the latest novels and movies and plays to where to get the best pasta. And of course always politics, politics, politics. It was the last year of the Clinton administration and we debated how much Al Gore should or shouldn’t use Clinton in his own run for the presidency, and then we had to endure eight years of George Bush. I say “endure” because Balth is a decidedly liberal place. In fact, during the nearly 10 years we have been going there for coffee and croissants, I can recall only one Republican ever taking us on. A twenty-something waiter named Steve from New Jersey who almost wound up voting for Barack Obama. Sarah Palin’s being on the ballot made it difficult for him to vote for McCain. In other words, he was Balthazar’s kind of Republican.
So to have one of our smartest and closest friends show up yesterday morning and declare, loud enough for all nearby to hear, that she is “finished” with Obama was to say the least jarring to the half-awake.
“I’ve had it with this bipartisan business. We need a president, not the editor of the Harvard Law Review. For that he was fine. To be open to a diversity of opinions. We’re not only talking health care and the economy but also whether or not to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam, and I don’t think he’s capable of standing up to the generals who are calling for escalation. Harry Truman would have fired that McCrystal who the other day in London in public made a speech about how it would be defeatist not to send in another 40,000 American soldiers. That was outrageous.” Others at nearby tables, not looking up from the New York Timeses or Guardians or Le Figaros were nodding their heads in agreement
“Not that I totally disagree with you,” I piped up, “but isn’t it a little early to come to this conclusion? After all he’s been president for less than nine months. These are complicated issues and they take time to think through and get Congress to act on. It’s not just up to him to pass health care legislation, and after eight years in Afghanistan he can’t just have us pick up and leave. Or, for that matter, expand our efforts.”
“You sound just like him. Like a member of the Law Review or worse a professor.”
“Touché. But isn’t it a good thing to try to work in a bipartisan way?”
“Initially, yes. He was, and I emphasize was, he was right to try to do that. But within weeks it was clear that the Republicans were going to do everything they could not only to disagree and defeat him but to break him. You heard that Senator DeMint say that very thing didn’t you?” I acknowledged that I had. “Well, at that point, if he hadn’t figured out what they were up to, he should have realized that they were out to destroy him and his presidency and he should have unleashed Rahm Emanuel. If he himself was incapable of fighting back. Or going for their jugulars.”
“I think it’s more complicated than that. Lyndon Johnson could do that because he had the goods on half the members of Congress—who they were sleeping with and whether it was with women or young boys. He could use that—and I’ll grant you he did—to twist arms and at least early in his presidency get his way.”
“Fair point. But we are again in a crisis and we again need forceful action. Obama and his people call it a recession; I call it a depression. And so, since he’s a student of history he should have learned from Roosevelt’s example and been much more aggressive.”
“Well, isn’t he still in the process of working with Congress on his legislative agenda? I mean, he has problems within his own party when it comes to health care. Some of the Democrats in the Senate are worried about their own reelection chances.”
“Isn’t that pathetic. They care about their own reelection than the good of the country. But for the first three or four months Obama was so popular that if he had really gone after them, threatening them if he needed to, I think he would have been able to push things along and would have seen his approval ratings go through the roof. But he frittered that away by being passive and indecisive. For example, why did he say back in March, after being in office just two months, that Afghanistan was a ‘war of necessity’ and that we had to expand our efforts there? Didn’t he know anything about the danger of quagmires? I’ll tell you why. It’s because he was trying to appear tough and decisive. About this he was forceful. About the economy and health care he just made speeches. Good speeches yes. But while he was carefully crafting his words both the Republicans and his own Democrats in Congress were doing him in, and now he has even lost a lot of his support among the public. At this point why would anyone in Congress feel threatened by him? Quite the contrary—they know that they can roll him. He’s so eager to be nice and liked that he can’t scare even a freshman congressman. Or pressure anyone to vote one way or the other.”
“I think you’re right about his wanting not to appear threatening and to be liked. This is probably the way he made it though Columbia and especially Harvard Law School. As a biracial person he opted to be black but not an angry, militant version of a black man. I understand that; and you may be right, it has probably caused him to be too cautious, too equivocating.”
“Minimally, I like to see him express some understanding about why people are feeling so frustrated and angry. Why that slimy Glen Beck has become so popular. There is a Populist wave out there in the country but Obama seems oblivious to it. I emphasize ‘seems’ because I’m sure, smart and aware as he is, that it exists. But he doesn’t appear able to empathize with it. Make fun of him as you will, but when Bill Clinton said ‘I feel your pain’ a lot of people believed him. At a minimum I’d like to see Obama say, believably, that ‘I feel your frustration and anger. I too am frustrated and angry.’ And he needs to not only say the words but act in ways that show his frustration and anger.”
“I agree with this as well,” I said, surprising myself. “He thus far is unable to do this. I’m sure that he understands things but he appears emotionally aloof and above the fray. Out of touch with the emotions sweeping the country.”
“To tell you the truth I’m not so sure that he understands this. If he did he would get rid of that friggin teleprompter—he can hardly utter one sentence about anything without using it—and speak to us from his heart.”
There was more head nodding at nearby tables. People by then had put down their newspapers. “At the moment I’m feeling very sorry that Hillary didn’t get elected with him as vice president. She would have busted a few chops and he could have spent eight years learning how to do things. I know she’s a hawk, but it is looking to me that he too will turn out to be one. She, at least, would by now have gotten a few things accomplished. The folks on Saturday Night Live got it right the other night—he’s done nothing.”
I had no rejoinder. “One more thing,” she said, “which I know I not politically correct it that it’s great that we elected a black man. It really is. But what we need is not a black president but an effective one.”
I again had nothing to say. But I did know that if Obama is losing his Balthazar supporters he’s in big trouble.
And if you read Bob Herbert’s column in today’s New York Times (linked below), you’ll see that some of his leading public supporters are coming to the same conclusion.
So when Balthazar began to serve continental breakfast a year or so after it opened, Rona and I began to go there for our morning coffee and to meet with a growing group of “regulars” who quickly became good friends. It’s a terrific place—still is—with lots of semi-authentic French bistro atmosphere and savory fare.
Caffeinated conversations in the morning ranged widely from the latest novels and movies and plays to where to get the best pasta. And of course always politics, politics, politics. It was the last year of the Clinton administration and we debated how much Al Gore should or shouldn’t use Clinton in his own run for the presidency, and then we had to endure eight years of George Bush. I say “endure” because Balth is a decidedly liberal place. In fact, during the nearly 10 years we have been going there for coffee and croissants, I can recall only one Republican ever taking us on. A twenty-something waiter named Steve from New Jersey who almost wound up voting for Barack Obama. Sarah Palin’s being on the ballot made it difficult for him to vote for McCain. In other words, he was Balthazar’s kind of Republican.
So to have one of our smartest and closest friends show up yesterday morning and declare, loud enough for all nearby to hear, that she is “finished” with Obama was to say the least jarring to the half-awake.
“I’ve had it with this bipartisan business. We need a president, not the editor of the Harvard Law Review. For that he was fine. To be open to a diversity of opinions. We’re not only talking health care and the economy but also whether or not to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam, and I don’t think he’s capable of standing up to the generals who are calling for escalation. Harry Truman would have fired that McCrystal who the other day in London in public made a speech about how it would be defeatist not to send in another 40,000 American soldiers. That was outrageous.” Others at nearby tables, not looking up from the New York Timeses or Guardians or Le Figaros were nodding their heads in agreement
“Not that I totally disagree with you,” I piped up, “but isn’t it a little early to come to this conclusion? After all he’s been president for less than nine months. These are complicated issues and they take time to think through and get Congress to act on. It’s not just up to him to pass health care legislation, and after eight years in Afghanistan he can’t just have us pick up and leave. Or, for that matter, expand our efforts.”
“You sound just like him. Like a member of the Law Review or worse a professor.”
“Touché. But isn’t it a good thing to try to work in a bipartisan way?”
“Initially, yes. He was, and I emphasize was, he was right to try to do that. But within weeks it was clear that the Republicans were going to do everything they could not only to disagree and defeat him but to break him. You heard that Senator DeMint say that very thing didn’t you?” I acknowledged that I had. “Well, at that point, if he hadn’t figured out what they were up to, he should have realized that they were out to destroy him and his presidency and he should have unleashed Rahm Emanuel. If he himself was incapable of fighting back. Or going for their jugulars.”
“I think it’s more complicated than that. Lyndon Johnson could do that because he had the goods on half the members of Congress—who they were sleeping with and whether it was with women or young boys. He could use that—and I’ll grant you he did—to twist arms and at least early in his presidency get his way.”
“Fair point. But we are again in a crisis and we again need forceful action. Obama and his people call it a recession; I call it a depression. And so, since he’s a student of history he should have learned from Roosevelt’s example and been much more aggressive.”
“Well, isn’t he still in the process of working with Congress on his legislative agenda? I mean, he has problems within his own party when it comes to health care. Some of the Democrats in the Senate are worried about their own reelection chances.”
“Isn’t that pathetic. They care about their own reelection than the good of the country. But for the first three or four months Obama was so popular that if he had really gone after them, threatening them if he needed to, I think he would have been able to push things along and would have seen his approval ratings go through the roof. But he frittered that away by being passive and indecisive. For example, why did he say back in March, after being in office just two months, that Afghanistan was a ‘war of necessity’ and that we had to expand our efforts there? Didn’t he know anything about the danger of quagmires? I’ll tell you why. It’s because he was trying to appear tough and decisive. About this he was forceful. About the economy and health care he just made speeches. Good speeches yes. But while he was carefully crafting his words both the Republicans and his own Democrats in Congress were doing him in, and now he has even lost a lot of his support among the public. At this point why would anyone in Congress feel threatened by him? Quite the contrary—they know that they can roll him. He’s so eager to be nice and liked that he can’t scare even a freshman congressman. Or pressure anyone to vote one way or the other.”
“I think you’re right about his wanting not to appear threatening and to be liked. This is probably the way he made it though Columbia and especially Harvard Law School. As a biracial person he opted to be black but not an angry, militant version of a black man. I understand that; and you may be right, it has probably caused him to be too cautious, too equivocating.”
“Minimally, I like to see him express some understanding about why people are feeling so frustrated and angry. Why that slimy Glen Beck has become so popular. There is a Populist wave out there in the country but Obama seems oblivious to it. I emphasize ‘seems’ because I’m sure, smart and aware as he is, that it exists. But he doesn’t appear able to empathize with it. Make fun of him as you will, but when Bill Clinton said ‘I feel your pain’ a lot of people believed him. At a minimum I’d like to see Obama say, believably, that ‘I feel your frustration and anger. I too am frustrated and angry.’ And he needs to not only say the words but act in ways that show his frustration and anger.”
“I agree with this as well,” I said, surprising myself. “He thus far is unable to do this. I’m sure that he understands things but he appears emotionally aloof and above the fray. Out of touch with the emotions sweeping the country.”
“To tell you the truth I’m not so sure that he understands this. If he did he would get rid of that friggin teleprompter—he can hardly utter one sentence about anything without using it—and speak to us from his heart.”
There was more head nodding at nearby tables. People by then had put down their newspapers. “At the moment I’m feeling very sorry that Hillary didn’t get elected with him as vice president. She would have busted a few chops and he could have spent eight years learning how to do things. I know she’s a hawk, but it is looking to me that he too will turn out to be one. She, at least, would by now have gotten a few things accomplished. The folks on Saturday Night Live got it right the other night—he’s done nothing.”
I had no rejoinder. “One more thing,” she said, “which I know I not politically correct it that it’s great that we elected a black man. It really is. But what we need is not a black president but an effective one.”
I again had nothing to say. But I did know that if Obama is losing his Balthazar supporters he’s in big trouble.
And if you read Bob Herbert’s column in today’s New York Times (linked below), you’ll see that some of his leading public supporters are coming to the same conclusion.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home