Ava: They're building on images, images that many people have seen of Barack Obama since he became US president. On trips, he's bowed before other rulers which his defenders insist was (a) either not really a bow or (b) common courtesy and which others insist is something no president should do, bow before other leaders. The bowing was seen as appeasement.
C.I.: And for those who feel that way, those images took root a long time ago. Isaiah did a comic back in November of 2009 about this topic, in fact.
Jim: Great, that'll be our illustration for this piece. Then Betty, last week, explained it wasn't just the bow. In "When Barack got a book . . .," she explains how Hugo Chavez gives Barack a book that's a blistering critique on US policy and his response is to act happy about receiving the book.
Ava: And there are those who feel that dissidents in other countries, such as Iran, did not receive the support they needed. Or take what's been dubbed the "Arab Spring" and how often the official policy coming out of the White House was to back many oppressive regimes in the region -- to continue to back them.
C.I.: A point that really needs to be made is that after 8 years of Bully Boy Bush, anyone coming in, even John McCain, in 2009 was going to be seen as 'softer' in their interaction with other world leaders. That's because Bush knew no bounds -- whether it was the inappropriate touching of Germany's Chancellor or what have you. Bush also blustered and bullied. Anyone coming in after Bush, certainly any of the people who were running for president in 2008, would have appeared "softer" just due to comparison.
Jim: When the Mitt Romney attacks from the press over his statement started last week, I thought about how they were missing a lot and how you, C.I., killed a section of a roundtable we'd had because Bush was still in office. You and I were discussing him and his place on the world stage and you made some important remarks but you killed them, pulled them from the piece, saying you weren't going to put that out there while Bush was in office.
C.I.: Right. He was finally getting the criticism he deserved and I wasn't going to defend him. But to put it simple terms, you can make a political science argument in favor of Bush's image. He was the crazy man on the world stage. He wasn't the only one or the first one. Some would argue Saddam Hussein cultivated the crazy man on the world stage image. That image is one where you do and say things that are so out there that other countries wonder what you might do and about your how rational you may be. If you're Saddam Hussein, that image can keep you in power for a number of years but not forever. If you're leading the United States -- you know I don't use the p-word with Bush -- it's a little different in that the world has gone from a bi-polar system -- the US and the USSR being the great powers -- to a uni-polar as the USSR imploded. Proponents of the crazy man on the world stage image would argue Bush being seen as crazy or irrational could actually deter violence and attacks on the US.
Jim: Because the reaction would be, 'He's so crazy! Who knows what he might do next! We better leave him alone.'
Ava: And why, may I ask, did this come to mind last week?
Jim: No, I'm not saying Mitt Romney's trying to cultivate that image. I was just thinking about that conversation, from 2007, I believe, and how I was kind of blown away by it because I'd never heard about it and, by then, Bush had been in the White House forever. And to me, that the argument had never been popularly made or floated went to how ill equipped our journalists in America are to address issues. And I thought of that when all the nonsense and phony outrage from the pundits was fired up last week. We're talking about image now because Mitt Romney is criticizing Barack Obama's image. You two have talked a little earlier about where an image of weakness might come from. But what does weakness say to the world community?
Ava: Barack is seen as weakened. He's seen that way for a variety of reasons. To be clear, I'm thrilled that his hands are tied, or seen that way, with regards to starting new full blown conflicts. But it's true that there are War Hawks who complained that there wasn't an on the ground offensive by US troops in Libya and that group and others also feel that there should have been US troops on the ground in Syria by now -- in fact, months ago. So this feeds into an image of being weak.
C.I.: And the White House is aware of that. Last week, a lot of Barack's comments were in response to fears from his campaign that Romney might 'out tough' him. But the statements were also because the administration realizes an attack took place and that Barack, due to his image, needs to be using strong words to scare off or ward off other attacks.
Jim: Is Barack weaker?
C.I.: Than Bush? Yes, anyone would be seen that way unless they were a borderline personality. In terms of the world, he can be seen as a kindly father or he can be seen as inept and weak. It has to do with what's being emphasized and what the events of the world are.
Jim: Would Mitt Romney as president be seen as weaker or stronger?
Ava: I think about the same. If he's looking to be seen as strong, the first thing he's going to have to work on is consistency. He's had a problem there and it may be a media problem or it may be a campaign issue but there's not really been the follow up on a lot of things that should have had one. If you look unfocused, you can come off weak.
C.I.: Of the ones running, Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate, would probably be the best for America's image worldwide. Just the fact that she could win -- a woman and a woman who is not with one of the two dominant parties, a doctor -- which translates as caring -- and someone who doesn't say "middle class, middle class, middle class . . ." but actually talks about the poor and poverty. With Barack, there was hope in the world that, largely due to his bi-racial status, that he would be a change. What's happened is that people around the world haven't seen any change.
Ava: A lot of people were vested in his image -- the American media still is -- and they saw what they wanted to. There's not any real excitement about Barack running for re-election as a result of the fact that the world sees Guantanamo still open, they see the Drone War having increased under Barack, specific things like that.
Jim: Last week, a win or a loss for Barack?
Ava: In "Was Mitt wrong? Who knows?," C.I. makes the very important point that opinion is fluid and the events are as well. I'd say last week may have set up certain plays that take place this week and next but I don't know that it was a win for him -- or for Mitt Romney either.
Jim: C.I.?
C.I.: The American people, unlike the government, have a strong sense of decency and fairness. So for that reason, Barack was a loser and Romney was a winner. Part of Barack's image of being weak stems from the fact that he's always rescued and pampered by the press. When they turned themselves into attack dogs to protect Barack last week, it didn't help him and it makes him look less than strong, to put it mildly. When they all gang up to beat up on Mitt Romney, that just helps Romney. His supporters get fired up because the media's demonstrated yet again that they won't play fair. If the media keeps doing this, you'll probably see a record turn out among Republicans because this is the sort of nonsense -- this refusal of the media to play fair -- that can send people to the polls.
Jim: Alright, we'll leave it there.