Obama's Anger Problem

That's right. Obama may be the candidate with the anger problem -- a problem in that it seems he can't get angry. Or is it that he doesn't think he can let us see him get mad? Whatever it is, it's a problem that could cost him the election.

It occurred to me when I was watching Steve Kroft interview him on 60 Minutes. There's a little bit of a distance. Obama's holding back. There's a coolness there that might be good for governance, but isn't so good for politicking. It might explain why so many voters still can't connect with him on a gut level.

I'm not talking about the web crazies who rant about the HALF-BLACK Barack HUSSEIN Obama being a secret MUSLIM. (Curiously many of the same people who insist Obama is a secret MUSLIM are also enraged about Obama's longtime pastor, Reverend Wright. Does that make Reverend Wright a secret IMAM?) I'm talking about the rational voters who, after all these months, still don't feel like they know who he is.

To be sure Obama expresses disapproval. During the debates he could be testy and aloof. (Remember telling Hillary she was "likable enough"?) On the stump recently he's been indignant about the McCain/Palin ads. But he never boils over, lets someone have it.

Ronald Reagan broke out of the pack of GOP primary candidates in 1980 with this outburst:



Reagan, a master of stagecraft, stole it from Spencer Tracy -- to brilliant effect.

George H.W. Bush was dogged as a wimp during his 1988 campaign ... until this smackdown with Dan Rather:



Reagan is far more effective and economical in his theatrics than the elder Bush in his tedious performance. (That whole family really needs to take a break. You know, go away for a few generations and recharge their batteries. It would be good for all of us.) Nevertheless the point stands: Bush got ticked off; his approvals ticked upward.

Now watch Bush's 1988 opponent Michael Dukakis not win an election by not blowing his top:



Will I go to hell for laughing at that clip? Dukakis' response to Bernie Shaw's Kitty-gets-raped-and-murdered scenario is so inept, so absurd!

In 1992 most voters knew Bill Clinton had a temper, confirmed later by George Stephanopoulos. And if they didn't see rage on the campaign trail, they saw raging hormones -- which also tends to flesh a man out. (As for the 2000 race, Al Gore and George W. Bush were equally neutered temperamentally. Hence the virtual tie.)

So why doesn't Obama blow a gasket, get pissed off? My hunch is he doesn't think he can, not without major blowback. And maybe he's right. Maybe he'd get pinned with the "angry black man" label. Once he becomes the "angry black man," maybe he's toast.

It's too bad because that restraint probably holds him back in other ways. (We know he can do soaring oratory, but that's not intimate. It's a refuge from intimacy.) At the end of the 60 Minutes piece, Steve Kroft asked him about the defining experience of his life. The answer is pretty rote ... until the last 45 seconds, when he breaks through and really connects (whole clip below):



What do you think? Should Obama show some anger in interviews or during a debate? Or could it be that he can't get angry? (He's from Hawaii. Do Hawaiians get angry?)