After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.
Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.
Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment?
The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing. It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where the president won by 15 points one year ago).
And now this?
Congressional Democrats must wonder if a White House that has burdened them with a too-heavy policy agenda over the last year has a strong enough political operation to help push that agenda through. If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters.
All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.
New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on Twitter.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html
I thought he what he said was sympathetic and on the mark for the amount of detail available at that time. It had just happened.
I think Robert is always abundantly fair to Barack Obama...and Robert always tries to avoid any type of criticism of our President whenever he can.
Isn't that true, Robert? 
Absolutement, mon Capitaine.
It's the BHObama style that lacks anyhing close to compassion and suavity.
I saw it and it was awkward. The public was waiting for words of the Commander and Chief to fallen soldiers. It was a bit odd the compliments and call-outs to those he was going to praise orginally. When he did speak about the situation, it was fine. I do think there was bad advice given by his staff to start off the way he did. It was disconnect that left me a bit baffled. Just my opinion.
He spoke for 2 minutes in a banal manner, then went to the Ft Hood shootings. You can click the link in the story making introductory remarks.
Anyone with a sense of the gravity would,have said "I depart from my prepared words for...."
Anyone "frightened" by Obama's insensitivity must be very easily frightened.
Look out, kittens playing with puppies!
I hope nobody pissed their pants in fright.
That's strange. 
I clicked on this thread expecting to read a legitimate news story but after a thorough search, I couldn't find one. 
Maybe it's one of those Care2 glitches.
Oh, well. 
"Maybe it's one of those Care2 glitches. "--X B
Careful you don't frighten yourself. Some people are very easily frightened.
It's a wonder they ever move out of their parents' house.
The President was, at the time, attending a freakin' conference for petesake, which had just come to it's conclusion where he was expected to address the attendees about the conference.
What would have been inapproriate and worth condemnation is if he had talked about Ft. Hood first then went on afterward to make his acknowledgements to the conference attendees as if dismissing it.
What he didn't do was to sit on his ass for 7 minutes with an upside down book in his hands looking like a complete idiot while the WTC was under attack. I think he fulfilled his obligations on both fronts properly considering the circumstances - which weren't that he was holding an otherwise unplanned press conference specifically to address the Ft. Hood disaster.
Obama haters really should learn discern what is 'really' something to complain about instead of waiting to pounce on ANYTHING that can possibly be construed or twisted into something to present as "Obama is wrong!" It's not like there isn't enough to have genuine and honest concerns about.
I think the problem came from the media who said here is the President addressing the Fort Hood incident and then he's thanking everyone. It wasn't coordinated well at all. President Obama hater...not really. Not a lover either though.
Watching Obama speak yesterday at his scheduled event, an event at which it was reported he would also be speaking about the shootings at Fort Hood, my expectation was the man who serves as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States would make appropritate remarks of sympathy at the beginning of his remarks offering comfort to the families of the slain soldiers. I also expected well wishes for the recovery of those who had been injured in the shooting. No, I did not expect the President to cancel or postpone the event, just show proper decorum under the circumstances.
What I saw instead was a President who appeared well-composed, almost jovial as he began his remarks. I wasn't frightened, but I was appalled at what I felt was an insensitive President to the grief felt by families across the country thinking of loved ones stationed at Fort Hood, and a nation stunned by the violence which had occured some three hours earlier. As for the details available at the time, it was already known 12 Americans had lost their lives at the hands of a gunman, or gunmen.
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 16:48
"It wasn't coordinated well at all."--Suzanne
So that shoots a hole in the idea that the media is in the tank for Obama if they can't even lead into his statement without screwing it up.
I am often a critic of President Obama but this time I didn't wish to be. However, I am tending to agree with you, Roy. He handled this very, very poorly. His remarks should have begun, immediately, with talking about the Ft Hood murders and sympathies for the victims, their families and their loved ones.
I am not angry at Barack Obama for the poor way IMO it was handled but I am saddened. Just saddened.
I don't think Obama is insensitive at all, and I didn't read him as being insensitive during this address.
It appeared to me that he was working hard at keeping his composure, which is what he does all the time.
What he didn't do is this: 
Yes, we are a nation not used to having a President who has class and presents himself with a professional demeanor like President Barack Obama.
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 16:53
"So that shoots a hole in the idea that the media is in the tank for Obama if they can't even lead into his statement without screwing it up." - Kevin
Not by a longshot. Either the media made a mistake or, more likely, Obama's staff dropped the ball. Aren't they the ones who feed the TelePrompter?
With respect to the media, didn't anyone notice that katii's post was from Fox? We all know how much Fox and Obama love each other. 
I think that this is ridiculous. He showed appropriate compassion and caring.
There are people who will pick on him no matter what he does. I admit that I don't care for him as much as I did before he took office, but this is just looking for an excuse to trash him.
I agree with Katii.
I don't think it is an excuse to trash him. I think it is as simple as two minds seeing it differently. Once again, Roy, I agree with what you said. You conveyed it much better than I. No need to get angry or accusatory at those who have a different view. This situation was mishandled by his staff. I am sorry but he is Commander and Chief, that's where his first priority should be in a situation like this.
He could have made his other comments prior to this statement without it being televised. He came off scripted and somewhat insincere.
I am sorry but he is Commander and Chief, that's where his first priority should be in a situation like this. ~Suzanne
He's the President of the whole of the United States, who happens to also be CoC. The Tribal Summit he was attending was an historic event and very important.
Katii - I am certainly not saying that summit wasn't important. We will never see this in the same way. I just personally do not feel it was handled appropriately. Just my gut feeling.
Everyone is entitled to his/her gut feelings. I wasn't aiming my comment at any individual - I'm just saying...
Suzanne, I didn't think you were.
I'm just saying that a much bigger 'negative' deal is being made of 'how' the President publicly addressed the Ft. Hood event than is warranted or deserving. One would think he address it at all the way some are describing it as "frightening insensitivity" - Roy even offered that the President was "near jovial" and "appalling," remarks that seem to be born in an already existing anti-Obama bias and which I could not disagree with more.
"Not by a longshot. Either the media made a mistake or, more likely, Obama's staff dropped the ball. Aren't they the ones who feed the TelePrompter?"--Barb
But that wouldn't change the media's lead in to the story and what they were saying Obama was about to talk about. That would be a communication between Obama's staff and the media or the media just making an assumption. (Although I actually wasn't all that serious about that being "proof" of anything).
"He's the President of the whole of the United States, who happens to also be CoC. The Tribal Summit he was attending was an historic event and very important."--Katii
Agreed. He is also the head of state and chief executive, which in just about any government where the offices were divided woulf be considered more important than the commander in chief of the military..
He should have probably mentioned it first, but I think it says more about the rabid politics & twenty~four news cycle than anything else...
I feel sorry for Obama, even if he stood up and said he was handing out free money to everyone someone wouldn't like it. At least he is lucid, rational and intelligent.
Bush.....my favourite quote "The French don't even have a word for entrepreneur". And you'd prefer a President who would say something like that????
"I feel sorry for Obama, even if he stood up and said he was handing out free money to everyone someone wouldn't like it."--Lynn
You have to understand that apparently many of his critics are easily frightened to the point of tinkling themselves. It's all very frightening to them.
Dear Blackcat,
You said:
He should have probably mentioned it first, but I think it says more about the rabid politics & twenty~four news cycle than anything else...
I think you hit it squarely there.
I would have preferred if he "should have." But he didn't. I am still more with Roy's post...however, I do not think that shows Barack Obama is "insensitive"; it just shows he is human and he makes mistakes.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 1:04
Dear Lynn,
You said,
I feel sorry for Obama, even if he stood up and said he was handing out free money to everyone someone wouldn't like it. At least he is lucid, rational and intelligent.
Bush.....my favourite quote "The French don't even have a word for entrepreneur". And you'd prefer a President who would say something like that????
Well-said.
I think, also, we could help the French by lending them some of our English words like "entrepreneur," so their language will not be so insufficient.
It seems very strange that he didn't reverse the order of his comments and talke about the immediate crisis first instead of the "shout-out" and other comments. I can't read his mind so I don't know if he was intentionally being insensitive but I've watched Obama a lot during the campaign and concluded early on he's an oportunist; he speaks to the audience at hand and tells them what they want to hear. This venue was not about the Fort Hood incident so he naturally gave it a lower priority. I sure wouldn't assume he doesn't care about the incident though; I'm sure he's deeply disturbed since he is Commander in Chief.
Former President George W. Bush, with his wife, Laura, visited today with those wounded at Fort Hood. Former President George W. Bush.
Why wasn't our current President - our current Commander in Chief - the first one to make that visit to the wounded?
Why hasn't Barack Obama done what our former President has done?
What is wrong with him?
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 6:45
The White House released a proclamation on the tragedy at Fort Hood formally ordering flags flown at half-staff "at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, Tuesday, November 10, 2009."
"Our Nation's thoughts and prayers are with the service members, civilians, and families affected by the tragic events at Fort Hood, Texas. The brave victims, who risked their lives to protect their fellow countrymen, serve as a constant source of strength and inspiration to all Americans. We ask God to watch over the fallen, the wounded, and all those who are suffering at this difficult hour," the president said in the proclamation. The order came as the president was scheduled to be visiting the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 6:54
Maybe he's too tired from all his recent travel to New Jersey? He does need to stay in Washington to try and twist arms today on this health care legislation as well. So many things to do!
I consider Barack Obama's lack of response, not immediately visiting Ft Hood, to be a major mistake - a mistake that military members will long remember and will long hold against him.
I do think he should be there. Perhaps he is taking a leaf out of our Mr Brown's book, who never seems to be around when he should be!
Dear Lynn,
I think two things happen with Barack Obama and what he does - or what he doesn't do.
Some people will criticize Barack Obama no matter what he does. Like i think you said, in so many words, if he achieved World peace tomorrow, there'd be those who would complain because he didn't do it the day before.
Then there are those who support Barack Obama no matter what he does; blind, unthinking, knee-jerk support.
Then there are others, like me, who wish I could support what he does and what he is doing, but I am truly disappointed in him so far. I can only wish that tomorrow he will begin to get it right. If he does, he'll have my full support. But if he keeps doing what he has been doing, in many areas, I will continue to criticize what I know he is doing wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/11/07/sot.obama.weekly.address.whitehouse
Weekly address directly speaks about the Fort Hood incident in more detail.
KEVIN is on a wetting-the-pants rant...guess he is still having trouble with that potty training.
"I hear some tinkling. Is there a leak in here?"--Knate
That noise you are hearing is coming from the scaredy-right.
Since George W Bush lives in Texas and WAS a former President, could Obama have dispatched him to visit the wounded troops? I see nothing wrong with that. I would have done the same.
Oh, your wife is dead...
He was going to make some sort of introductory remarks as the meeting was about something else. It appears he was saying hello to those who were there, and was uncomfortable about it, knowing he had something more somber to speak about the next moment. He was not meeting directly with a family involved or anything. If he did not spend every waking moment speaking on it, some would still criticize him. His actual remarks on the subject cannot be faulted. Perhaps, more insensitive are those that are using this situation for political gain. The president makes heartfelt and the right remarks on the event and some insist on politics as usual. It is sort of like the boy who cried wolf, after a while no one pays attention anymore...
"Perhaps, more insensitive are those that are using this situation for political gain. The president makes heartfelt and the right remarks on the event and some insist on politics as usual."-BC
No, the people who are the true patriots are the ones making political hay by criticizing him for speaking to the people actually in front of him in real life. It is patriotic to criticize everything the president does now. The more petty your criticism, the more it proves you love America.
I think it only fair to accept some see it one way and others see it another. I have absolutely no political stake in this, but my feelings and my opinions remain the way I stated them above. People are entitled to their own views. As far as President Obama dispatching GWB, I find this highly unlikely. To say people are scared and wetting themselves is beyond ridiculous.
Dear Anthony,
President Obama's weekly address was excellent.
(See, I don't only criticize him. When he does something right, I say so.)
...
PS/Of course he had nothing to do with GW Bush and Laura Bush visiting the wounded. I think it was a stand-up gesture of them to make that visit. Good for them.)
I think it is much more likely the GOP dispatched the ex-president to visit the Ft. Hood victims precisely so they could invent even more to whine and complain about.
"To say people are scared and wetting themselves is beyond ridiculous."--Suzanne
You did see the thread title where the author claimed it was "frightening," right?
I'm not the one who started the idea that anyone at all was frightened. My post was a joke about the claim that Obama's insensitivity is "frightening."
Was anyone really "frightened"? I'm guessing no, but the author threw in the word "frightening" for some reason.
If someone claims something is frightening, they are admitting that it frightened them. That comment was hyperbolic, so my response was not serious to it.
It is idiotic to say that "Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned." I’m guessing the author wasn’t actually stunned.
I would bet that the moment he saw it, rather than being stunned, he saw an opportunity to criticize Obama and rushed to his computer.
You're a normal person, Suzanne, and you said you were not frightened. You thought it was odd, but I think agree that normal, reasonable didn’t react with fright.
Do you think anyone was “frightened,” or do you agree that the author is guilty of sensationalistic propaganda?
The author of such hyperbole deserves nothing but ridicule. He wasn't engaging in serious discussion or even probably offering a reasonable description of even his own reaction. If he was really "frightened," then he suffers from abnormal cowardice.
Republican, Democrat, left, right, beyond, that sort of nonsense only hurts the country when taken serious.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 14:17
You cannot currently send a star to Kevin because you have done so within the last week.
You cannot currently send a star to Kevin because you have done so within the last week.
Oh? Sure I can...
The author ddn't use the word "frightened". "Frightening insensitivity" is a good term to describe the manner in which BHObama introduced the FtHood killings to the crowd at the BIA.
I just think this whole conversation is silly. Fine attack the author for his wording. The only problem is it seems the same attack is being placed upon those who feel differently posting in this thread. I would say it is hard to guess how people were feeling by the time President Obama did address this. I would imagine shock (stunned) could be used to describe it. The events were pretty horrific.
Just as it is being said that people are just picking up on this to criticize President Obama. The same could be said about President Bush's visit, which I believe was out of genuine concern. It is once again only my opinion.
Dear Suzanne,
Some people attack no matter what. Some people support no matter what.
But there is nothing wrong with people questioning the actions of our President - and then coming to the conclusion that maybe, he did okay, or maybe, he did not. Most people are in this category which, to me, is fine.
It's not The Great Conspiracy.
"The author ddn't use the word "frightened". "Frightening insensitivity" is a good term to describe the manner in which BHObama introduced the FtHood killings to the crowd at the BIA."--Robert
"Frightening" would only be a good choice of words if people were actually frightened. That is what the word "frightening" means.
But if someone was frightened, then fine. Was it your choice of words? What exactly frightened you?
"Fine attack the author for his wording. The only problem is it seems the same attack is being placed upon those who feel differently posting in this thread."--Suzanne
I was only talking about the use of the word "frightened," and if anyone was not frightened or did not use the word "frightening," then my post was not about them, and it was not an attack on them.
I have to be honest here, it seems lately as if every thread seems to lead to the finest definition of a word. I don't even feel like speaking anymore.
People have opinions, I respect that. I don't need to dig so deep to understand what they are trying to say and don't feel the need to educate or be educated on the exact use of a word or label. I'll catch you guys later.
Exactly!
I think it's nice when people can just say things, straight from their heart, and not have to have everything belittled, reduced and picked to death over narrow dictionary definitions; subverting the point of what they are saying.
Radical Right Wing smacked down in elections as Republican Party & voters move to the center!
Lose in House? New York-23? It's a fill-in candidate who is out of office next year when the REAL election will take place.
Grasping at straws, or just pulling our leg?
I was talking about the Health Care Reform vote that just passed...
{~& making fun of the on~going propaganda campaign...}
Representative Foxx, Republican, claims Health Care Reform more dangerous than terrorism to America. I am sure the families of the dead & wounded at Fort Hood are glad to hear it...
Darn it, Robert (the Bruce). I was counting on that gig to get me out of the Recession.
I have to be honest here, it seems lately as if every thread seems to lead to the finest definition of a word ... I don't need to dig so deep to understand what they are trying to say and don't feel the need to educate or be educated on the exact use of a word or label.
Amen, Suzanne 
If there is a question as to someone's use or meaning of a word or phrase I think it's well enough to qualify our own use and meaning of a word or phrase in any response to a remark using said word or phrase.
Dearest Katii,
And let me re-post what I said, too, about this obsession with exact definitions:
I think it's nice when people can just say things, straight from their heart, and not have to have everything belittled, reduced and picked to death over narrow dictionary definitions; subverting the point of what they are saying.
Suzanne and Katii: I agree completely with what you say.
Let's get back to discussing ideas and opinions without feeling we have to be straight-jacketed in every word we say.
I think it's nice when people can just say things, straight from their heart, and not have to have everything belittled, reduced and picked to death over narrow dictionary definitions; subverting the point of what they are saying.
I agree, Knate. I think that's nice too.
We're all grown-ups here and I think most often it's easy to grasp someone's meaning of a word or phrase used - more often than not the context in which it's being used is telling - if it's not then it's pretty simple to inquire then take it from there.
Dear Katii....
I think you and Suzanne agree. We don't want to give the impression that only people who are grammatical and language scholars post.
There is a place for definitions - and I think we cover that well when defininitions are needed - but people should also feel free to express their ideas and opinions in the way they wish to; with the words they wish to use. people shouldn't feel stifled if they haven't consulted their Funk and Wagnall's.
Like you say, Katii; "it's most often easy to grasp someone's meaning of a word or phrase used."
"I think it's nice when people can just say things, straight from their heart, and not have to have everything belittled, reduced and picked to death over narrow dictionary definitions; subverting the point of what they are saying."--Knate
I agree that people should not have to worry about narrow dictionary definition, and when people are being honest and speaking straight from their heart with words not meant to distort and propagandize, then they can and should do so.
I do not see this as a case where honest people do not know what the dictionary definition of "frightening" or "stunned," but one of asking whether anyone was actually frightened or stunned. It is a case where the writer wasn't concerned about conveying an honest, straightforward idea.
Enough stupid Republicans inserted a clause banning federally-funded abortions that conservative Democrats were able to vote for the bill and can go back to their districts and crow about how they toed the line. But we'll see what happens in 2010.
