Don’t kid yourself. Every move is calculated for impact. Thus we are free to measure exactly what imagery has been decided to be put forth by the Obama Administration and the consequential end results.
Meet the spokespeople, spokespersons, spokeswomen, (I search for the proper presentation) of the State Department. These are the faces and voices of the American State Department. Foreign nations and the American citizenry look to these people for information regarding our national policies. They hear and watch these sources of information. A style, a panache coupled with a carefully cobbled method and approach, all tailored to project a certain appearance accurately reflective of the intricate inner workings of this most important department of our national government. A well oiled machine.
Meet Marie Harf and Jen Psaki. They are probably nice people. But do they belong where they are? Some believe they are “perfect” for these positions. I beg to differ.
We got the “Dude, that was two years ago!” lingo from one of the Obama intellects regarding Benghazi matters. (I guess now he would say, Dude that was two and a half years ago.)
Now we get these communicators. Like, okay. Any questions? I mean, gosh, is this a "Saturday Night Live" skit or what? That would be awesome.
Are the glasses the right ones? Do they project the intellect that we are after, or is it too “Valley Girl” meets librarian look? Gag me.
Fully understanding that the Obama administration is “chic”, “hip”, “tuned in”, etc., and also fully understanding that old white men in suits isn’t their style, can we not do better than this? Articulate, eloquent, and astute are descriptions that do not come to mind.
Sometimes a “George Will” in a bow tie type is not bad. Perhaps not “chic”, but competent, at least in appearance projection, is the goal here.And hopefully the imagery matches that level of competence and equals the intellect suggested. In the current condition, what we see maybe really what we get.