I've read only a little Chomsky, some time ago at that. Yes, we would likely feel more respect for our pundits if they were generally in fact wise elders -- I can only think of Daniel Schorr, here -- and not merely egotistic sycophants, like Joe Klein, who was the bloviator du jour on ATC that day.
As for names, I guess we're well past a time when there was inherent deference for an office (this interview seems to be evidence enough of that!) I haven't thought the pros and cons of that, but it does get pretty ridiculous when everyone feels entitled to psychoanalyze the guy. My intent in choosing to refer to him here by his position was simply to highlight that gross contrast of attitudes between the man and his office.
As for the absurd narrative itself... I do think the President was pretty shrewd here. But no matter how shrewd he is, the narrative rules are set up beforehand so that he a) shows too little emotion, therefore b) any emotion he shows is "out of character," a "gafflet," and "embarrassing." (And that's just Joe Klein, who was trying to appear more balanced than many of his colleagues.)
Chomsky
As for names, I guess we're well past a time when there was inherent deference for an office (this interview seems to be evidence enough of that!) I haven't thought the pros and cons of that, but it does get pretty ridiculous when everyone feels entitled to psychoanalyze the guy. My intent in choosing to refer to him here by his position was simply to highlight that gross contrast of attitudes between the man and his office.
As for the absurd narrative itself... I do think the President was pretty shrewd here. But no matter how shrewd he is, the narrative rules are set up beforehand so that he a) shows too little emotion, therefore b) any emotion he shows is "out of character," a "gafflet," and "embarrassing." (And that's just Joe Klein, who was trying to appear more balanced than many of his colleagues.)