"the communications ability of this White House is just slightly above catastrophic"

[Better Believe It]

The Great Miscommunicator
by David Michael Green
July 29, 2009
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.

I would rate the communications ability of this White House at just slightly above catastrophic. These failures were on full display last week with the healthcare press conference disaster, but, in fact, they have been in the making right from the beginning.

In fact, they began in the very first minutes of the administration. Remember the Lincolnesque eloquence and profundity of the inaugural address? Yeah, me neither. That speech was an unbelievably blown opportunity to give a forceful, game-changing oration that could have brought along tens of millions of people through the majesty and power of the occasion. All the elements were there: the massive crowds, the global attention, the momentous development of our first black president, the much promised “change”, the many crises warranting it, and the overwhelming public desire to turn away from a disastrously failed prior regime.

He waited far too long in his new presidency to give a major speech on what ails the country and how we ought to proceed, and when he finally addressed a joint session of Congress for this purpose, he was only somewhat better than at his inaugural address. Again, does anyone remember anything memorable from that event? Can anyone list his topics, without making obvious retrospective guesses (it's the economy, stupid)? Can anyone identify from that virtual state of the union address one call to action, one bold assertion, one controversial claim for which the president was willing to spend political capital? I honestly cannot.

.... Obama has now given something like four or five prime-time press conferences as the primary vehicle to sell his agenda (assuming anyone can figure out what that is - but more on that question in another piece). Forget for a moment all questions of content and courage. This approach is just plain strategically stupid, no matter what you're trying to sell.

.... why - even beyond the fact that Obama's performance is usually only okay at press conferences - why in the world would the White House be using press conferences to sell their agenda??? The very nature of the forum is built around the concept that the audience in the room controls the event. The press not only control what themes get asked about (what if Obama had gotten questions on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gates affair, or global warming - and none about healthcare?), but they also choose what specific questions to ask, and how to frame those questions. Maybe the president wanted to talk about getting universal coverage for the public, but the press asked instead about the party politics of the legislation on Capitol Hill. Maybe Obama wanted to exert leadership on the topic, but the press asked questions that made him out to have lost control of the issue's agenda.

The point is that, even if Obama was especially skilled at press conferences, like Jack Kennedy was, this is absolutely the wrong forum for the purpose of rallying support around an issue critical to both the nation and the fate of his presidency. Instead, you give a televised address from the Oval Office, or a high profile speech somewhere appropriate. By doing so, you control the content, you think out ahead of time precisely what you want to say, you pick the emotional pitch of the delivery, you design the setting to maximize the impact of whatever message you're trying to get across, you get the bonus of presidential gravitas inherent to the setting, and you stage manage everything about the presentation to align with the communications goals for it that you pre-establish before the first word of the speech is even composed. Alternatively, if you utilize the press conference format instead, you lose every single one of these benefits, in part or in whole.

The second most astonishing thing about the failure of the Obama people to get this is that presidents have understood these principles at least since FDR gave his fireside chats. I mean, picking the appropriate medium for the message you're trying to convey is Presidential Communications 101.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/29-5

- It's harsh, but the writer does make some valid points. IMNSHO In my not so humble opinion -

[Teaser]

1. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT

.

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) When the left hates you, and the right hates you, it's only a matter of time..

Before they, working together, convince everyone else to hate you as well.

Congratulations, guys, on a well-player first 1/8 of the game.

[debbierlus]

45. Obama needs to lead and stand up instead of forever being in the wishy washy middle

He was NOT elected because people wanted 'bipartisanship'.

He was elected to create good policy and restore the constitution.

Standing for nothing, in the wishy washy middle may seem a politically safe strategy, but it is the worst strategy possible.

If he stood up for the principles of the 'left' (really the main stream positions of America), he would be in a much stronger position.

You must admit, that bipartisanship seems to be a political cover for caving into corporate demands.

And, no, people aren't going to like that - the reasons the 'left' are upset with him are valid. The right just hates him.

The left wants him to succeed, but they don't want right wing policies passed off as reform.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

4. When cornered, their lies just become more blatant...

I just used this subject line in another thread; it fits well here too.

I find it egregiously disingenuous to critique Obama's communication skills in any way after being subjected to Dumb Dubya for 8 years.

[Better Believe It]

8. "egregiously disingenuous" Practicing your communications skills on us working class folks?

Well, President Obama clearly doesn't need your advice or "help" on becoming more effective in talking with ordinary working people who don't have a PHD or other degree like some people. And sometimes at public town hall meeting when answering a question President Obama can just go on and on and on and on and on ..... And when he does that he loses people.

Here's just one example from yesterday in Raleigh, North Carolina.

QUESTION: My name is Patty Briguglio. I own a company called MMI Public Relations. I have 20 employees, and I provide health care benefits for them. And so I wouldn't blow it, I've written down my question.


What current long-term social program created and run by the government should we look to as a model of success and one that we as taxpayers should feel confident that a new government-run health care system would be better than the current system in place?


In other words, what are you going to do differently?


OBAMA: Well, let me say this. Just in -- just in the health care arena, I'd point to two -- two areas. Medicare and the V.A. are both government-run health care programs that have very high satisfaction rates.


Generally, if you look at surveys, they have actually very high satisfaction rates.


Now, the V.A., because it's a self-contained system, meaning that people see patients, year after year, because they're not -- it's not dependent on what they job they have, they can actually do some things in terms of prevention and wellness and some of the things that I just talked about that have helped to lower their costs and improved quality of care, in a pretty impressive way.


Medicare is a different situation because seniors really like Medicare, generally. They appreciate the security that it provides. And by the way, we're in the 44th anniversary of the passage of Medicare.


Prior to that, senior citizens were extraordinarily vulnerable. And so it is a successful program. The problem with Medicare is -- is the same problem that we have with the health care system, generally, which is health care inflation has driven costs up. That's not unique to Medicare.


In fact, this is something that's important to know, that health care inflation under Medicare has actually gone down at a -- has actually increased at a lower rate than in the private sector. All right?


So -- so let me repeat what I just said, because everybody always says, well, government can't run anything. Medicare costs have gone up more slowly than health care costs in the private sector.


So the private insurance that you're getting -- you've actually seen your premiums go up faster than Medicare has cost taxpayers, even though seniors have high satisfaction rates with Medicare.


Now, having said all that, it's all relative. Medicare still needs to be a lot better and more efficient. And there are examples of how we can make the entire health care system more efficient.


We know where these examples are -- the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Gessinger (ph), Kaiser Permanente. There are health systems around the country that actually have costs that are as much as 20 or 30 percent lower than the national average and have higher quality.


And so the question is: Why is that? What is it that they're doing differently than other systems? And there are some patterns that start coming into place. For example, number one is that they have a patient-focused practice, where instead of worrying about how they're -- how they're billing -- so how many tests they're ordering, or how many procedures they're ordering -- all they're focused on is the patient.


And they -- part of what helps is their doctors are all on salary so they don't even know what the economics of any decision that they're making are. Then it turns out you also have a group practice, so that when you come in, the family physician -- your primary care physician -- has already coordinated with all the specialists.


So instead of having to go to four different doctors and four different tests, you go and take one trip, and you see all of them all at once, and they all help diagnose you and coordinate your care throughout the process.


They've got health information technology so that when you take a test, it actually gets forwarded to the next doctor, and the next doctor, and the nurse and the pharmacist, so that there aren't any errors. So there are a whole range of, you know, practical things that they're doing that are improving quality and lowering costs at the same time.


Now, there's no reason that we can't duplicate that in both private and public settings across the board. But in order to do that, we're going to have to change how we reimburse, for example. So we've got to say to doctors and hospitals, "We're not going to reimburse you for the number of tests you provided. We're going to reimburse you, instead, for the quality of the outcome."


Here's another example: Right now, we just reimburse hospitals no matter how many times they re-admit you. Now, if you took your car to the shop and they fixed it, or you thought they fixed it and then two, three weeks later, you go back in and they're having to do the same thing, you -- you wouldn't feel good about paying twice for the exact same thing that you thought had been fixed.


But under Medicare, there is no penalty to hospitals for having very high re-admission rates compared to their peers.


So those are the kinds of things that can be changed.


Now, your broader question may just be, I don't have confidence in government.


But as I pointed out -- I just want to go back to my original point -- Medicare costs have gone up more slowly than private sector health care costs. That is documented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072901739.html

-----------------------------

Now students .... were you all taking notes? There will be a test tomorrow!

And please keep David Axelrod off the Sunday talk shows! When he answers a question it seems he didn't hear the question and just turns on a pre-recorded talking points switch. Little feeling, compassion or spontaneity is on display when he mumbles along.

[JuniperLea]

9. And... What part of what he said did you not get?

What is your gripe? That he didn't explain it thoroughly, or that he explained it too thoroughly? What is your point?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. He should have explained it with puppets.

Obama sounds too got-danged intel-lec-chul.

SLOW DOWN PROFESSOR!

[Better Believe It]

29. Do you have a snobbish elitist attitude toward working class people?

Sure seems like it.

Don't worry about it.

We pretty much ignore folks who have that attitude.

If fact, many of us don't care if their incomes are chopped down 90% during this depression, down to our level of say 40 or 50 thousand a year tops.

Why should we care about what happens to 2 or 3 percent on top?

They've had it too good and don't gave a damn about us.

Join us on the bottom!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. I'm sorry, I thought the sarcasm was fairly obvious sans smiley.

I think that people are quite capable of digesting polysyllabic words without feeling that sitting and listening for 50 minutes or reading a few paragraphs is akin tedious schoolwork.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. The disdain you have for working class people is remarkable

That you use this to pretend to be on their side is just nasty.

[Mrs. Overall]

43. Exactly.

[global1]

5. Gee - Makes Me Just Long For Those Good Old Days Of Dubya's.....

communications ability. (sarcasm)

[JuniperLea]

10. I know!

I understand almost everything Obama says. It's freaking me out, man!

[Better Believe It]

12. Dubya had none. He didn't need any. He had help from Democratic "centrist" enablers

Look at how many Democratic Senators voted for Bush's legislative proposals and Supreme Court appointments.

And if you're holding up George W. Bush as a "benchmark" for public speaking I think a rock would do better.

So giving a better speech or answering questions better than Dubya isn't exactly rocket science or a huge accomplishment.

[JuniperLea]

You missed the sarcasm...

Even though it was clearly labeled.

You may consider an eye exam. Got insurance?

[depakid]

41. That's kind of an inescapable fact, isn't it?

[uponit7771]

6. I'd say the DNC is horrible, Obama is carrying all the weight himself!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Ah, David Michael Green, Professor of Tea Bag Studies.

He's got a point, Obama just doesn't know how to talk to the public.

[JuniperLea]

14. This is the second post linked to Hofstra U today...

Interesting.

[Fire1]

18. Really?? I think it would be difficult, to say the

least, for anybody to talk to a public and a media that picks apart everything you say, misrepresents, misinterprets and takes it out of context. Under these circumstances, I think he does quite well.

[Thrill]

11. YAWN

Democrats have been terrible at pushing the Presidents agenda. Thats one thing they didn't learn from the Republicans for 8 yrs.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Your shtick is getting old.

You don't like Obama - we get it. Move on to another site, please.

[Better Believe It]

27. I like President Obama. I supported him. However, he's not infallible or God ....

even if you make think so.

Now if you don't have an opinion on the article why did you bother to post here?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. The article is garbage.

And you've done nothing but post garbage.

That enough of an opinion?

[Flying Dream Blues]

44. +1

[FrenchieCat]

17. Maybe Mr. Green can move on to explaining what he suggest

Obama do in bipassing the fucking pontificating armchair quarterbacking mediawhore club which obviously Mr. Green has now joined. The Whole Country was falling apart when Obama took office, and now, after the fact, we get this marvelous critic stating of how everything has taking too long to communicate, 6 months into this President's term. Fuck Mr. Green! Hope he got paid for his article. The fact that you bring this shit over here just bolsters my thoughts of why you are even on this site posting all of the shit articles you have been posting since March of 2008.

Hell, Bill Press can do his wishy-washy beltway pundit crap all day long, but when he criticizes President Obama, you are right there to bring it to us! How obvious can you be?



That's my communication to you.

Hope it is clear.

Wouldn't want you to sic Mr. Green on me. :eyes:

[Better Believe It]

25. He did! Read the entire article. Why do you continue to comment on things you haven't read?

Don't worry about Mr. Green. He won't mess with you. I'm sure he prefers discussing issues with people that have some knowledge of real politics.

Now please read the article and if you have a comment on it I'll read your opinion.

Now let's be civil, OK?

[smoochpooch]

19. I'd feel a lot better if he would just say, "I will veto any bill without a strong public option."

He's danced around it, but I've never heard him say it. Right now, I'm not so sure what he plans to do.

[Amos Moses]

32. Shit, you'll never get him to say what a "strong" public option is.

He won't tell you what that consists of but he wants everybody to know he's for it. Whatever "it" is.

[Political Tiger]

20. BORING!

[paulk]

21. maybe there's something to that, maybe not

I will agree with this from the article -

" The essential theme of the last six months is simply this: Barack Obama has not taken control of the political agenda in America"

I don't think Obama's main problem is an inability to communicate - I think he doesn't have the experience to lead that's necessary to do the job. He still thinks the Presidency is like community organizing - you bring people together and hash out your problems.

I don't think that's the President's job, myself. He's trying to bring Congress together, he's trying to reach consensus - he's acting as a facilitator, not a President.

He's not being clear enough about what he wants, that's why his attempts to communicate what he wants are failing.

[Jennicut]

22. Wow...he holds too many press conferences. He explains too much.

The dumbifying of America continues...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[4lbs]

24. Ah, another Obama bashing thread by BBI. What else is new?

.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

28. His opinion and yours. Nothing else.

Just some other people who think that you should not explain too much, that, after all, the right is correct when they think you are too stupid to understand what is told to you.

[grantcart]

31. thanks for the laughs - here was my favorite line "He waited far too long in his new presidency to

give a major speech . . . "

Atleast David Green admits that he has been an Obama hater from the begining (just substitute the word 'disappointment')

So what's your excuse?



From his April column


I have written three columns about Barack Obama since he was inaugurated in January, including one just a week or two back. Every one of them has been critical - including one which referred to him as "Obusha" in the title - and if I had to label the Obama presidency with one word so far, it would be "disappointing". It's been this way for me since the beginning of his campaign.



But there is one point we all agree upon


One could certainly make a good argument that I'm a naïve fool. . .


You got that right David and those that think your clever are too.

[Number23]

39. That caught my eye too. 1) Obama's been in office for a grand total of 6 months

That's not "far too late or long" to do ANYTHING and 2) he's been making policy speeches and giving town halls etc. since seemingly his first week in office.

An old lady is selling her tv's because "Obama's on 'em too much!" but somehow this idiot thinks that the President has waited too long to discuss policy and hasn't said enough. It can't possibly be both of these things.

[TomCADem]

33. Very Little In The Way Of Fact Based Analysis In That Piece...

"I would rate the communications ability of this White House at just slightly above catastrophic. These failures were on full display last week with the healthcare press conference disaster, but, in fact, they have been in the making right from the beginning."

The article seems pretty pompous if you ask me. It is filled with assertions, but little in the way of concrete constructive critiques. Rush Limbaugh could have wrote the article. The point appears to be:

1. Press conferences are bad.
2. Town halls are bad.
3. Give more speeches, and answer less questions.
4. President Obama is only okay press conference. No explanation as to why.

In other words, if the President followed the authors advice, then the White House would lack transparency, becaue there would be no interaction. Just the distribution of talking points, and the false assumption that the media would faithfully repeat such talking points.

Sorry, but that whole piece strikes me as pompous and naive.

[Amos Moses]

34. Great post, BBI.

The article makes some good observations so thanks for posting it.

[theothersnippywshrub]

36. Governing is different from campaigning. So is the communication involved. n/t

[backscatter712]

37. Yet more trash from another Obama hater.

Utter tripe.

[Ikonoklast]

38. What points?

He hates Obama, and so do you?

Other than that, he has less than you got, which is nothing.

[TankLV]

40. Well - since the election, SOMETHING is amiss - his stumbles are quite glaring

especially in comparison with the control and almost military precision and clarity of the campaign...

I sure hope his "handlers" will be gone soon and the "real" Obama can re-emerge...

You have to admit OBAMA has given "the critics" plenty of ammunition...

Of course, on the other hand, we knew "they" would be "out for bear" and hunting him and hounding him from the get-go...

but THIS TIME AROUND, we won't LET THEM SUCCEED like they almost did with Clinton...!!!

[dionysus]

42. you're like the energizer bunny

[high density]

46. The media is still wired for the GOP machine

I think team Obama knows plenty about handling the media. They're at a serious disadvantage given that the media has allowed the starting point of any debate to be far off in absurd right wing framing (e.g. attacks of socialism).

[Scarsdale Vibe]

47. The optimal time for a speech from the Oval Office is when a bill is out of conference committee

The President will get whatever he wants in the final bill for the most part, sell it in a primetime speech from the Oval Office, and it will pass easily with no Democratic Senators filibustering and Snowe coming in to save the day if Byrd/Kennedy take a turn for the worse. A major speech about healthcare without a final bill is a waste of time because the only thing he can honestly speak to is the danger of the status quo, not the benefits of any specific legislation.

[Hamlette]

48. This kind of shit is why I don't ever read common dreams

incredible bs

we have been trying to get health care reform in this country for over 100 years. Obama is closer than ANYONE before. His failure is NOT because of communication.

Seems like the left is so used to criticism they have no idea what to say. I do not advocate supporting in lock step like the GOP but this kind of shit is straight up bs.