Wojtek
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:09 AM, James Leveque <jamespl79 at gmail.com> wrote:
> In attempting to come up with an explanation for Obama's "listless"
> performance of late, the NYT is looking into the possibility that he's
> clinically depressed. It sounds like the Times is stretching for other
> tortured explanations for why Obama refuses to stand up to the GOP.
>
> http://gawker.com/5839440/is-barack-obama-depressed
>
> Wouldn't you be? Barack Obama is at the nadir of his political popularity
> and effectiveness. He has been maneuvered into an economic corner of 9%-plus
> unemployment by a relentlessly nihilistic Congress. His achievements—killing
> bin Laden, saving the auto industry at negligible cost—are written off as
> flukes. Plus all this 9/11 anniversary stuff! We hear the *New York
> Times*is looking into whether it's all starting to get to him—like,
> *clinically*.
>
> We're told by a source inside the *Times* that the paper is preparing a
> story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political
> back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is
> generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials
> will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T<http://www.isitlowt.com/>
> .
>
> Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the
> notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode. Of course,
> absent a telltale Wellbutrin prescription or testimony from the man himself,
> it's really impossible to achieve a reliable diagnosis. And a story like
> "Obama Appears to Suffer From Depression" can be easily downgraded to
> "Political Travails Begin to Take Personal Toll on Obama." So the story in
> question, if it ever comes out, may not end up supporting the depression
> thesis. But rest assured: There are people at the *Times* who, based on the
> paper's reporting, believe Obama is depressed—the kind of depression where,
> if he weren't the president of the United States, he wouldn't be getting out
> of bed in the morning.
>
> As per usual, a *Times* spokeswoman declined to comment: "In keeping with
> our policy that we don't comment on stories that we may or may not be
> working on, we will not comment in this case."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>