Ruth Marcus's essay, titled Obama's 'Where's Waldo?' presidency, is a critique of Obama's presidency. Marcus essay is straight to the point and dives into her topic. She uses multiple examples to defend her statements toward Obama and seems to do a fair job of staying unbiased.
Marcus starts her essay by stating the main issue which is that Obama seems to be passive and missing more often than not. She goes on to explain that each of these absences can be explained "as matters of legislative strategy, geopolitical calculation or political prudence." Then, she gives a few examples. She states how she is not bias against Obama because she shares most of his political views and ideology. She gives examples of Obama's absence and then insinuates how these might be part of his political strategy. Next, Marcus gives a few more examples of Obama not being on the scene, a compliment to Obama's ability to give speeches on stage, and then follows with how his message can be very vague. She then concludes by reiterating her comparison of Waldo and Obama. An analogy that Marcus uses in her essay is a comparison of Obama to Waldo. With this analogy she is trying to communicate how, like Waldo, Obama seems to be missing in action and that this is a bad practice. I don't believe this to…show more content… She doesn't establish her credibility directly by stating her education or experience. However, she does state it when she assures that she is not bias by saying her view on the President is harsh even though she "generally shares the president's ideological perspective". She also shows that she is not bias by giving a compliment on his ability to give speeches when she stated, "He rises to the big occasion". She also shows her credibility when she talks about how she personally asked a question to Goolsbee, and aid to Obama. This shows that she is active in gathering information as close to the source as she
