As for Libya, a basic principle in resolving problems is recognizing them and dealing with them. I really believe in a practical sense that President Obama would be best served by dealing with all the issues involved before the debate on Monday on his terms. Aside from helping himself, there are also basic policy, management and leadersip problems which can also be addressed that would help him, his administration, and the country.

These are missteps not on factual, logical, or ethical grounds but on social and political ones. They demonstrate a lack of personal and cultural sensitivity and normative understanding; either he knew how each of these comments would be received and didn’t think it was important, or he didn’t know, which is probably worse.

The job of President of the United States (or indeed any similar position in national government globally) is first and foremost a political and diplomatic one, both domestically and abroad. Leadership of and communication with the public and administrative units at various levels, coalition-building, state-level negotiation, and so on are not merely rational-calculative roles and responsibilities. Yes, one can argue that they ought to be, but in any practical sense that argument is moot; it’s now how the world (or people) thus far seem empirically to function.

What the public intuitively senses and worries about in Romney’s case is that “binders of women,” “I like Big Bird,” “47 percent,” and any number of other phrases demonstrate weakness in a primary core competence area of political leadership. It is not a secondary issue, nor should it be.

In other words, it’s not (just) about the women; it’s about how Mitt does (or in this case, doesn’t) effectively communicate with them. The same thing is true in each case; one could similarly say that Bain Capital isn’t the issue, but rather Romney’s inability to leverage it properly and effectively in service of a clear narrative and vision. Obama’s handling of Libya, whatever you think of the outcome, was much more skillful in this regard.

People complain about Ronald Reagan or “Slick Willie” and the degree to which they seemed ultimately immune to negativity or scandal, but in fact both were effective in governance and the enactment of a policy program, and Clinton remains effective in so many other roles today, in each case because of these primarily social skills. At this level, such sensitivity is the first requirement for efficacy at job responsibilities.

Romney looked downright silly when it came to Libya. He’s behaving like a brazen opportunist. God help us if Romney is elected especially when it comes to foreign policy. The Middle East is a tremendously complicated part of the world. What I read from NYT reporting is that the Libya attack was both a terrorist attack and hastily planned in response to the video. People work in foreign service aware of the dangers, often avoiding conducting business in bunker embassies. It is hard to know exactly what could have prevented the tragic deaths in this case, but I trust the administration to get to the bottom of the situation. Obama is not ducking his responsibility or culpability. You sound like you supported McCain in 2008 when he suspended his campaign in order to deal with the economic crisis. Lot of good that did him, or the country.

As far as campaigning after a tragic event: this sounds to me like a Fox news talking point. I am sorry. I don’t see the scandal. It only appears as such in our present hyper politicized partisan media environment and I don’t see the truth being hidden,

The Libya situation in my view is a big deal on many accounts. Based on testimony before Congress and in other documents we know that more security was requested and denied. Why? It wasn’t a budget issue. We know that the State Department monitored the attack, and never believed it was the result of a demonstration gone awry. It was conducted by militants on 9/11. Days and weeks went by with the administration telling a very different story. Why? Possible explanations include the fog of war (not likely based upon testimony to Congress), incompetence, mismanagement or deception. The President’s explanation deals only with the explanation: he wanted to be absolutely sure. If that was the case, then he should not have promoted the alternative explanation. This in my view from beginning to end is a horrible mess. Damage control is usually best served in my experience with the truth up front. I’ve dealt with many crises. I’ve completely changed my schedules and others, including canceling vacations, to deal with crises. I could never have imagined going on campaign and fund raising trips until I really knew what happened and organized things to deal with all aspects of the situations. This could have been done relatively quickly. How a leader deals with issues like this gives us insight into how leaders deal with other issues. That’s why I think Libya is a big deal, and why I think the President needs to defuse it with truth prior to Monday.

To me, the “binders of women” controversy is somewhat puzzling. Romney worked hard to recruit, hire and mentor women in significant positions, and in the process he was given binders filled with resumes of qualified, high potential women. That’s a very good thing that others should model. I’ve done the same thing.

President Obama looses credibility when he tries to avoid being straightforward on issues like Libya and oil and gas leases on public lands. Facts are sticky. Personally, I believe it will be in President Obama’s best interest to be open and honest on the Libya situation otherwise he risks losing the next debate on foreign policy.