Obama's Theoretical, Professorial World View

Here's what a person simply identified as "Mark" wrote about President Obama as a comment on the New York Times website in response to Thomas Friedman's recent interview with Obama in the Times:

"President Obama is very astute, smart, and thoughtful. He is a nuanced thinker, and has a great understanding not only of power, but the limits of power. Unfortunately, intelligent plans not enacted with alacrity and purpose are not of much use. There is a difference between smart analysis and smart leadership; leadership requires EQ (emotional quotient) as well as IQ. One must understand that a smart plan led by somebody that can rally the emotional support of her/his constituency, whether in business, politics, or non-profits, is essential. The President has not shown a consistent ability to get people to follow, let alone listen. People want to be engaged, with a clear purpose - the answer may be complex, but the plan has to be simple and applied. As George Patton once said, "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."

Though we don't necessarily agree with everything Mark says, he has certainly hit the nail on the head with regard to Obama's inability to lead.
You don't have to be a braniac to be a good leader.

And then somebody simply identified as "jb" offered a very prescient analysis of Obama's cerebral defense of his foreign policy:

This interview, and others before, reminds me of the oral defense of a dissertation. It is all words and theory with no grading based on the real world. Eloquent? Certainly. Effective in real time in the real world? Not so sure.
Obama's big flaw in foreign policy is basing US actions on the world as he wishes it was, rather than the way it really is. Not that he doesn't have encouragement. Leading from behind in Libya? Sounds good in the TA lounge. Hands off in Syria? Dissertation advisor loves it. Reset for Putin and Russia? Paper was peer reviewed and published. Troop withdrawal from Iraq? Standing ovation after the lecture.
The test for this president at this time is how well policies have advanced the interests of the US and our allies, not how well he defends his world view in an interview. And eloquence and nuance aside, it is hard to see how he passes that test.

Click here to read the interview with Friedman;