Milbank seeks "a template to understand the enigmatic president." It is pretty clear from the outset that Milbank is seeking no such thing, he has a template to describe the president. And I don't know were "enigmatic" is coming from. Obama may or may not be any number of things, but he sure as hell isn't an enigma.
We are treated to phrases like:
- “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.” (quoting a professor of psychology who, I think it can be safely assumed, never met much less treated analyzed the brilliant social and political analyst-in-chief).
- Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity”
- Though Tetlock hasn’t applied his methodology to Obama, the 44th president would seem to be the very model of the complex thinker. (Tetlock is another of the experts who at least is honest enough to admit he hasn't actually, you know, studied this or anything, but that Obama is still the "very model" of this example).
- Obama’s capacity for complex thought can become a liability, so, too, can his cool rationality. (So not only is he more intelligent than people dumb enough to disagree with him, he is more sane, also).
- We also learn in the article that Winston Churchill was simple-minded (who knew!).
Debates about impartiality or bias in the media are tiresome. Yes, there is bias and no, it isn't as bad as anyone thinks. But this sycophantic slobbering is a bridge too far and whoever edits Milbank and the Washington Post really should be ashamed that this was allowed even to run.
Jonah Goldberg chimes in on this as well.