He is an interminable, boring, narcissistic windbag.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2009/04/05/barack_obama_really_does_go_on_a_bit

Barack Obama really does go on a bit

Isn't it time for him to go home yet? It is good, in theory, that the new President of the United States is taking so much time to tour Europe. He arrived in London last Tuesday, has been to Strasbourg, Prague yesterday and now he's off to Turkey. It shows, I suppose, that he cares about the outside world and that is 'A Good Thing'. But his long stay means that we are hearing rather a lot from him, way too much in fact.

His speeches have long under-delivered, usually leaving a faintly empty sensation in this listener even though I welcomed, moderately, his victory last year as offering the possibility of a fresh start and a boost to confidence.

Yet, we are told that he is a great orator and in one way he certainly is. He does have a preternatural calm in the spotlight and a mastery of the cadences we associate with the notable speakers in US history - such as JFK and MLK. But beyond that, am I alone in finding him increasingly to be something of a bore?

His performance at the first press conference in London with Gordon Brown featured moments in which he sparkled - his riff on loving the Queen was a high-point. But most of the serious answers that I listened to were interminable, windy and not very impressive. At points there were pauses so long that it appeared he had simply lost his train of thought.

Today, we were treated to another set-piece Obama speech, and my didn't he go on a bit? The crowd in Prague was huge, and initially wildly enthusiastic, but what he served up was not any more impressive than his damp squib in Berlin last year. Is there a computer which churns this stuff out for him?

"For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place. You have known war and peace. You have seen empires rise and fall. You have led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city - this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful - stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit."

Empires rising and falling, destinies being defined and a Golden City standing as a monument to unconquerable spirit... goodness, what a ham. When he really gets going he's worse than Tony Blair.

But Obama was only warming up. "When I was born," (Everything usually leads back to him, you'll notice)... "the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become an American President." (Him again)...

"Few people would have predicted that an American President would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. And few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO, and a leader of a united Europe. Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams". (Not by Ronald Reagan they wouldn't have been, when most of Obama's Democrat friends thought the then US President's robust approach to the Cold War made him a loony on the loose).

"We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change. We are here today because of the courage of those who stood up - and took risks - to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like... (subtly this time, but right at the end the sentence leads back to him again).

The Obamas have handled their trip well and in their public appearances have been a credit to their country. But I'll wager that within a year or so he'll be marked down as a wind-bag.

Posted by: JP on April 6, 2009 9:09 AM

Doesn't Obama make you long for the eloquence of George W. Bush? Who can forget such insightful, articulate, and succinct expressions of thoughtful leadership as these few gems from someone who could truly think on his feet and speak his mind so fluently:

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

"They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Posted by: Chris White on April 6, 2009 1:13 PM

Chris White,

Perhaps we should assess Obama by his own words and actions. He's a big boy now.

Somehow, I think you'll always look for the relative view. Good luck, this guy needs people like you, always has, always will. Isn't Obama better than Mosley-Brown?

Posted by: Larry on April 6, 2009 1:27 PM

George Bush never ever had anyone describe him as a good speechmaker. Obama is grossly overrated as a speaker--he's just not that good technically, as an orator--and his content is remarkable for its emptiness. So it does no good to point back at George Bush in order to distract attention from the growing realization that Obama isn't even close to the hype that got him elected.

Prediction: the left will continue to mention George W Bush for the next TWO MILLION YEARS whenever any comment critical of the left is made. It's like the old Cold War era joke (updated to indict the guilty. And it helps to know that the Moscow subway was considered one of the great accomplishments of the Soviet Union):

An American conservative and Chris White are in the Moscow subway waiting for a train. The conservative looks at his watch and says, "Hmm, train's a few minutes late." Chris White shouts at him, "WELL WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM?"

Well, what about George W Bush? We're going to be hearing that a lot over the next four years.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 6, 2009 2:02 PM

Yes, Chris, the fact that we had eight years of an inarticulate, incompetent moron obviously means we need eight years of another inarticulate, incompetent moron! If we had one ignorant buffoon at the helm, let's not hire someone who can actually solve problems, let's get another ignorant buffoon!

It will be a real tribute to the strength of America if it can survive 24 years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

Posted by: JP on April 6, 2009 2:39 PM

I've been enthralled by the Michelle Obama fashion watch this past week. Don't get me wrong -- I love the way she dresses and if I worked that hard in the gym I'd wear sleeveless tops all the time too -- but the gushing, the adulation, the invocation of Michelle as the new American woman is all so breathless. The NYT Style & Fashion section has been a hoot.

Posted by: CyndiF on April 6, 2009 3:17 PM

This is no different than people bitching about how everything was Clinton's fault for like, four years or so.

And why is Michelle Obama so fascinating to people? I think she's going for a black Princess Diana vibe.

But then, I was born a little too late to appreciate Di at her peak, anyway.

Posted by: omw on April 6, 2009 3:39 PM

Posted by Chris White at April 6, 2009

"It was like that when I got here" or "Bush sucked too" isn't a method of governing. At least not until now. Seriously, did you even read the Salon article? My God, put some effort into it.

Posted by: nobody on April 6, 2009 4:34 PM

Like omw, I am puzzled by this love fest for Michelle Obama. The other day, I made a crack to my wife that Barack must be for same-sex marriage since he is in one himself. She looks like a linebacker to me - one who would whup my ass silly many times over. I wonder if ritual declarations of lust for Michelle Obama is a SWPL-ism...

Posted by: JM on April 6, 2009 4:42 PM

Michelle Obama will be fascinating for as long as she keeps her mouth shut in public and just smiles. Then people can project their glamorous fantasies on her. But if she started saying what she actually thinks - the kinds of blame-whitey, "never been proud of my country before" stuff that she believes, the sheen would wear off quickly.

I think Obama has shown us that black people can perform just as well as speakers as white people. Well, as long as their mothers are white and they are raised by their white grandparents and they go to exclusive private schools to hobnob with white children and Ivy League colleges to learn with white rich kids. Finally, a solution to the performance gap!

Then fall over and swoon because they can actually speak proper English! In a sonorous tone! (Ignore the fact that it's mainly cliches and fluff like 'change' and 'hope'.) (Anyone else already sick of hearing the phrase 'We can not and we will not....'?)

Posted by: Mark on April 6, 2009 4:43 PM

Last fall, I left this comment about Michelle O on Lawrence Auster's blog, defending him from critics of his comment on Michelle O's massive shoulders:

I agree completely that commenting on Michelle O’s appearance is indeed appropriate and not at all “Saileresque”. I want to follow up on a commenter’s point that Michelle O is portrayed by the press as the new Jackie O. I believe that should Obama win the White House, the press will be in full enforcement mode for a new mythology: that Obama’s White House is the new new Camelot, no matter what its accomplishments compared to those of the hyped JFK rip-off (itself a media concoction), and that Michelle O is indeed the new Jackie, the Queen of New New Camelot. No matter how much she annoys, irritates, sulks, preens, postures, whines, and especially, wags her finger and lectures in that annoying way that black women have perfected, no-one will be allowed to point out that Michelle is actually a hectoring, humourless, vulgar, sexless nag. Anyone foolish enough to compare MO to JO and find her wanting will be pilloried not only as a racist but a sexist too. Why? Because Jackie O was indeed the picture of feminine grace and style. Michelle O, with her mesomorphic body, enormous mouth (in both senses), and general air of mannishness, resentment and self-pity, is nothing of the sort. She is the end product not only of anti-racist liberalism, but of feminism too. Utterly unwomanly to anyone with eyes to see, of course. But nobody will be permitted to say anything to that effect. Our First Linebacker—I mean Lady!--will become a one-woman hub of a veritable network of taboos and Sunday beliefs. All in order to prevent us from paying any attention to our “lying eyes”.

God, it’s going to be a long four years, isn’t it?

Posted by: PatrickH on April 6, 2009 5:55 PM

Silly me for comparing the ability of the current President to answer a question in a press conference with that of the last President's ability to do the same. I mean, that is soooo off topic.

We're given the choice between the Good Cop party and the Bad Cop Party. Having chosen the Good Cop Party this time around we got a college constitutional law professor who often sounds professorial. Wow, I'm shocked, disappointed, and dismayed!

Before the election the fear being expressed by those who like &/or benefit from the Bad Cops being in power was that Obama was somewhere between Chavez and Che. He'd be pushing us toward runaway socialism and filling the cabinet and other appointed positions in his administration with those proverbial hunchbacked black women. He was going to change everything ... dramatically.

Now that those fears have been shown to be ridiculously overblown the response is to flip things around and deride the man for being a status quo politician instead of the instrument of change his campaign rhetoric emphasized. Golly, who could have predicted THAT?

All in all, given the viable choices we had in the 2008 election, I figure we're doing as well or better than expected.

Posted by: Chris White on April 6, 2009 6:16 PM

Chris White,
You didn't read the article, did you? You are an amazingly dishonest person. Before you post anymore bullshit, please go back and read your earlier comments. That way you can keep your shit straight.

Posted by: nobody on April 6, 2009 7:33 PM

I mean, that is soooo off topic.

Actually, yeah, it is off topic. Dubya is not President now, Obambi is.

we got a college constitutional law professor who often sounds professorial

We have an inarticulate boob who can neither give an intelligent answer nor fake it.

The "constitutional law professor" never wrote a single paper or argued a single case. Some lawyer. Some professor.

given the viable choices we had in the 2008 election, I figure we're doing as well or better than expected

That, at least, is true. Either way we were in for a disaster. "We're Screwed '08" was my bumper sticker.

Posted by: JP on April 6, 2009 9:10 PM

@ jm and PatrickH,
Your attacks on MO physical features baffles me. Why? Is it her (presumed) politics that bother you? Are you genuinely concerned about her appearance? Do you reflexively attack a woman where you presume she may be vulnerable? What exactly do you desire in your First Lady? Do you prefer her to change her appearance in some way? Do you think it useful to attack her appearance if you abhor her politics?

As Mark stated, her blame-whitey and "never been proud before" comments alienated me, but I'd not deny her on-target fashion acumen. With few exceptions (sleeveless dress at state of union address) she wears the right outfit to each event. Her height and color are striking, and she highlights her best features. Clothing sends messages, and hers state "I respect the event at hand."

Posted by: jz on April 6, 2009 9:21 PM

and one more thing, PatrickH,
I'll agree with you that JackieO physically and sartorially exuded feminine style and grace. But, have you ever listened to her speak, on a tape? She t a l k e d ......r e a l .......s l o w ....l i k e .....a .......r e t a r d.

Posted by: jz on April 6, 2009 9:28 PM

What difference does it make what he says. His handlers are committing far and away the greatest theft in history, the purpose of which is to bury the next generation and the one after that under a mountain of debt. Hussein & Co. are enslaving those not yet born.

Posted by: ricpic on April 6, 2009 10:15 PM

I can't wait to view the furor that will occur when and if viciously pointed attack on Obama and his mate starts to bubble up and into the mainstream media.

As you know, it has with most US Presidents, and all who have marked large departures from the immediate past.

Or won't they allow it?

Posted by: dougjnn on April 6, 2009 10:36 PM

Michelle's face and figure are somewhat mannish, but I think that her fashion sense makes her look very good. Given the number of average and unattractive women who don't even make the effort and lounge around in sloppy jeans and flip flops that's certainly admirable albeit to be expected in a public figure. But she's not charismatic, nor is it reasonable to expect her to be so: very few charismatic men choose mates who might outshine them.

As for everyone saying that her husband is a platitudinous narcissist I agree.

Posted by: hello on April 6, 2009 11:45 PM

It is hard to take the mainstream media seriously on Michelle Obama because they are cannot criticize her. It is not allowed in their world, so one must dismiss their opinions and analyses.

As for Barak, I picture him without a teleprompter leading a crowd in a U.S.A. chant:

Ahh S.A. Ahhh S.A Ahh S.A.

I do wish Obama would have told the European countries that he looks forward to the day that they can elect Muslim presidents. Spread that diversity.

sN

Posted by: sN on April 7, 2009 12:01 AM

jz:

"Do you reflexively attack a woman where you presume she may be vulnerable? What exactly do you desire in your First Lady? Do you prefer her to change her appearance in some way? Do you think it useful to attack her appearance if you abhor her politics?"

Awww, that is so cuute. Heroically jumping in to defend a poor, defenseless little woman from this evil, powerful man who could do such bad things to her...

Anyways, I don't really care about MO, except that she seems to be a "diversiticrat." I am, however, genuinely puzzled that there are so many reports about her glamor, her hotness etc. that I don't agree about at all. It seems many are getting stiffies looking at her, and there is not even a twitch at my end.

As for her dress sense etc., the first couple does have a staff of people whose job it is to manage these things and give proper recommendations for occasions where they represent the state. If I had a team of people scrutinizing my attire, I would be batting a 1000 too.

Posted by: JM on April 7, 2009 12:27 AM

jz: Do you reflexively attack a woman where you presume she may be vulnerable?

Um, sure! I guess!

jz, Michelle O is big, strong and not unattractive. She's actually pretty good looking. She is also crude, surly and possessed of an urge to social dominance not supported by her array of talents.

The problem is that we will no more be allowed to state these truths than we were about Barry O's ineptitude during the campaign. Read the comment. It focuses on how myth-mongering PC taboo thinking is going to be erected around Michelle O, demanding that she be treated as an icon of beauty, and as you have illustrated perfectly, attacking anyone who dares question the party line.

I must confess your absolute lack of self-awareness, of any sense of irony puzzles me. You criticize me (preposterously) for attacking a woman where she's vulnerable....and then you spew a vicious insult at Jackie O, and compound the offence by saying she's talks like a retard. (What is about the handicapped that brings out the social darwinist in you people? First it's Barry O dissing the Special Olympics, now you crapping on the mentally handicapped and a dead woman. Jeez.)

Now, I seem to recall that retards are pretty okay human beings on the whole. You, on the other hand, are clearly a nasty toxic ugly little piece of work. It is you who has attacked a woman where (according to you) she's vulnerable. So jz, why the need to do so?

P.S. That last was a rhetorical question. I don't really want an answer to the question. I've seen enough of your soul to last me a lifetime, so please do me a favour....and DON'T ANSWER.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 7, 2009 12:31 AM

PatH:

Good point, I just realized it now, that basically the mentally retarded and mentally ill are still pretty much "free game" when it comes to mocking and aping. I mean if Johnny Knoxville a comedy about putting on a blackface and attempted to become a rapper, he'd have been crucified, yet he can make a comedy about pretending to be mentally retarded and taking part in the Special Olympics.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be able to make such a movie, just noting that weird fact. If anything the mentally retarded and ill are those the least deserving of farcial social skewering and least able to really mount a counter against it.

Also brings back one of my experiences with a diversicrat back at the university back during mandatory graduate student orientation. She gave a list of example of "unsafe" situations, including sexual harassment, racial harassment, other less ideological moral dilemmas, and finally one that really fucking disturbed me. Putting forth the hypothetical about a student having a schizophrenic break during a class taught by us, and the appropriate way we should react (namely call the proper campus authorities to subdue and remove him from the classroom and not to return so that a safe atmosphere is maintained.) I then stood up and stated that in the given situation, the student is suffering from an illness, and thus should no more be barred from returning to school than someone who interrupts a class with a heart attack or epileptic fit (given that the vast majority of schizophrenics are harmless). She said that would only be possible if the said student could refrain from "acting out" during class (her exact words). Truly a WTF moment.

When you think about it, it's all about power, and that's why they don't give a shit about those people. They have nothing that can be used like a club. No votes, no money, no outraged eloquent voices, and most importantly no ability to fluff egos, just... awkwardness.

The more I think about it, the more I'm glad I left that moral swamp. It's like Roissy's pit, only they're playing angels, not devils.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 7, 2009 6:55 AM

Larry – In our land of the Two Cops Duopoly we're stuck with Either/Or. Since that is a given, and since Obama actually won by more than the margin of error, let alone being installed by the Supremes, the best we can hope for is that he performs better in office than the alternative choice would have. So far, that seems to be the case. Also, I'm patriotic enough to think that having a leader who goes to Europe and isn't burned in effigy everywhere he goes beats what we've had for the last eight years.

Patrick – Maybe it looks different from North of the border, but from where I sit the last eight years have been a disaster. While both parties deserve blame for the various self-inflicted wounds, the Pubs, and in particular the Bush/Cheney administration, have outdone the Dems in mucking up the works. Absent Bush/Cheney it is difficult to know what the situation in the financial sector or the Middle East or in our relations with Europe might be right now. What we do know is that there are loads of seemingly intractable problems that must be addressed. BTW, your Moscow subway joke is cute. Here's one of mine.

Patrick and his wife are standing in front of their burning house. His wife sighs and says, "I told you not to smoke in bed." Partick screams, "HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO BRING THAT UP? GET OVER IT!"

nobody - For the record, I DID read the Salon link before making my first comment, perhaps you need to go back and read it again, this time separating Obama's innocuous diplomatic response sidestepping a question about who is more to blame for the financial meltdown, the US or England, from the writer's satiric additions. The inclusion of every er or um along with asides added purporting to "explaining" them makes the piece a good bit. I found it humorous and certainly think that making fun of our leaders is one of the great things about free democracies. This one had more wit than Hannity or Limbaugh might muster. Still, it would have ended up cut from Jon Stewart or SNL.

One difference between this President and the last is that this one requires a witty opponent to put words in his mouth to make him sound out of touch or inarticulate, the last could do that on his own and did so on a regular basis.

ricpic – The thefts have been constant for decades. They dramatically accelerated under Reagan, moved along nicely under Bush 41, got a bit of a boost by Clinton, and went through the roof under the Bush/Cheney regime. Absent a very different way of electing our government I have every expectation that a McCain victory would have made little difference in the approach to the financial bailout. Obama just happens to be the one currently holding the bag.

Posted by: Chris White on April 7, 2009 8:47 AM

@Patrick and jm
Neither of you addressed my question; My original observation must have been true. When at opposition with a woman's politics, you reflexively attack her appearance. Where's the logic or rationale for that?

Re: the mentally retarded, I'm not backtracking nor apologizing. The mentally retarded speak slow; Jackie O spoke slow( and not graceful per your original comments) Facts. I made no value judgment beyond lack of grace, which you apparently have.

Posted by: jz on April 7, 2009 10:58 AM

No jz, you've flubbed it again. "When at opposition with a woman's politics, you reflexively attack her appearance."

I was not "reflexively" attacking her appearance because I am at odds with her politics. I am attacking her appearance and the taboos now firmly in place against pointing out that Michelle is anything but a perfect new icon of female beauty and style. Just as Obama's speechifying ineptitude is glossed over by increasingly strained hype about the brilliance of his oratory, so Michelle's limitations as a beauty are glossed over by increasingly strained hype about the brilliance of her clothing.

It is precisely her appearance and her fawning worshippers in the media that I am attacking.

As for lack of grace, you eptiomize it, jz. Your contemptible comment about Jackie O and retards is too revealing to apologize for--the mask slipped too far to be righted in time--so you're right not to back down. It wouldn't do you any good.

You might want to read Spike's comment above about the chilling attitude of the bien-pensant left about the mentally handicapped. Money quote:

The more I think about it, the more I'm glad I left that moral swamp. It's like Roissy's pit, only they're playing angels, not devils.

That's you, jz. Swamp-dweller...and proud of it. Stew in the bog, and rot there. Its atmosphere seems to suit you.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 7, 2009 11:52 AM

the best we can hope for is that he performs better in office than the alternative choice would have. So far, that seems to be the case.

It is? How do you know? How can you know?

I'm patriotic enough to think that having a leader who goes to Europe and isn't burned in effigy everywhere he goes beats what we've had for the last eight years.

I'm patriotic enough to think that whether or not a President is "liked" has no bearing on his ability to achieve things internationally. Other nations make decisions based on their interests, not on whether or not they "like" the President. So far we have seen that for all the love Europe supposedly has for O, the practical result is nothing. He is coming home empty-handed.

One difference between this President and the last is that this one requires a witty opponent to put words in his mouth to make him sound out of touch or inarticulate, the last could do that on his own and did so on a regular basis.

Nope. Listen to the video of that speech. O sounds inarticulate and ignorant even without a journalist making snarky comments on the side.

Posted by: JP on April 7, 2009 11:52 AM

Chris White wrote: Also, I'm patriotic enough to think that having a leader who goes to Europe and isn't burned in effigy everywhere he goes beats what we've had for the last eight years.

Chris, European approval may be your idea of the proper standard for judging an American president, but don't assume that it's somehow the "right" one. The most important thing for a president to do is what is right for this country. If the Europeans like that, fine. If they don't like it, who cares? The Europeans are not the world's standard-setters for what makes a good American leader. Would you say that an American leader was a failure if the North Koreans burned him in effigy? Do you feel ashamed of our country because North Koreans and fundamentalist muslims like Bin Laden dislike us?

Presumably you think Europe is a better place than America, with wiser leaders and better values, and that when an American is disapproved of by Europeans that this is a sign of failure. But a lot of us don't want to live in Europe, Chris. We like America and traditional American values and while we don't enjoy being disliked, we're not going to assume there's something wrong with us because Europe doesn't like us, any more than we do because North Korea or Bin Laden's muslims don't like us.

And I can't see what patriotism has to do with what you wrote. What's patriotic about wanting Europeans to like the President? What does Europe have to do with patriotism at all?

Posted by: Mark on April 7, 2009 11:53 AM

Chris, nice try on the joke. Don't quit your day job!

Extending your not entirely apposite humour sally:

You're doing the equivalent of looking at a house burning down while the fireman stands there smiling, smiling, smiling, and talking about how important it is to make sure the smoke doesn't foul the air, while you shout: "I told that guy not to smoke in bed! I told him!"

And then continuing to go on and on about the guy smoking in bed long after the house has finished burning down...and thanks to the fireman and his air beautification scheme, has spread the fire to the surrounding buildings.

I predict you'll be mentioning Bush MORE the worse Obama does. We're in for another four years of Bush Derangement Syndrome! Gack!

Liberals.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 7, 2009 12:04 PM

@Patrick,
You referenced Spike's comments on advice to manage an unstable schizophrenic in a classroom. I'd love to follow you on that.

All analogizes are incomplete, as is analogizing unstable schizophrenic with an unstable epileptic and an acute heart attack. The teacher lacked more precise terms than "acting out" but she had the right advice. Perhaps she might have worded it , not when the schizophrenic is "standing on her chair singing the national anthem", or " planing onions around her desk", or "shouting at others to liberate Bin Laden".

In terms of -potential for recurrence, -potential for distraction, and -potential for harm, there is no comparison.

Stating the facts of a mentally ill or mentally retarded person does not denigrate them.

Posted by: jz on April 7, 2009 12:45 PM

I am attacking her appearance and the taboos now firmly in place against pointing out that Michelle is anything but a perfect new icon of female beauty and style. Just as Obama's speechifying ineptitude is glossed over by increasingly strained hype about the brilliance of his oratory, so Michelle's limitations as a beauty are glossed over by increasingly strained hype about the brilliance of her clothing.

Now here I agree with you.
Michelle, however, did not get away with wearing a sleeveless dress in DC winter to the "state of the union" address. She was criticized for dressing too casual. As for Obama's fluffy speeches, he's been criticized for excessive use of straw man.

Posted by: jz on April 7, 2009 12:53 PM

"I predict you'll be mentioning Bush MORE the worse Obama does. We're in for another four years of Bush Derangement Syndrome! Gack!

Somebody who comments frequently on this website recently said that we can't blame FDR for everything wrong with America. Now they've got Bush! That's the level of "thinking" that's going on.

Posted by: nobody on April 7, 2009 1:25 PM

Greenwald is an honest journalist.

Posted by: Lester Hunt on April 7, 2009 2:07 PM

Mark – When you equate Britain, France, and Germany et al with North Korea and Al Qaeda you are revealing your own biases, ignorance, and lack of historical understanding, not making a valid counterargument to my point. Unless you believe either that we can and should hunker down inside our borders and ignore the rest of the world, or increase our military presence around the world to get our own way everywhere based on might alone, it is important to have a President who can gain the respect and support of other world leaders. Being seen as a positive and popular leader by citizens of other countries makes that easier to accomplish. Therefore, it is patriotic to want our President to be well respected and admired by Europeans because it helps us to advance our interests in the world.

FWIW I do not find Obama a "great orator" but, since every President since Reagan (and quite a few before) set the bar so low, he sounds pretty darn good by comparison. And, since not only the rhetorical capabilities but so many of the policy decisions of the previous occupant of the White House have been, at best, underwhelming, Obama has taken on the position at a time when there are both diplomatic fences to mend and huge challenges that must be addressed in conjunction and cooperation with our allies.

Replacing BDS with ODS is hardly a step forward. In fact, I don't recall BDS being much of an issue until he began to go seriously off the rails by deciding we needed to unilaterally bring about regime change in Iraq based on an ever shifting series of rationales, nearly all of which proved false in the end.

No president ever lives up to the hype of their dedicated supporters, nor is ever as bad as their worst detractors. I don't expect either the dawning of the Age of Aquarius or the collapse of western civilization as a result of the Obama presidency. Given that he's been in office less than three months and took over at a time of multiple, over-lapping crises I'm still in 'wait & see' and 'benefit of the doubt' mode. As opposed to many posting here who seem eager to have him fail spectacularly so they can say "I told you so." I certainly see that impulse as the antithesis of 'patriotism.'

And who replaced the witty and iconoclastic Patrick who used to post here with the humorless ideologue that has taken his place?

Posted by: Chris White on April 7, 2009 4:04 PM

I did. And it's not funny!

Posted by: PatrickH on April 7, 2009 6:24 PM

jz:

Just goes to show you don't know much about schizophrenics. I do. I spent some time in a place with a lot of them. If one is well enough to do the paperwork and maintain the grades to be in college, he probably isn't profoundly ill. Relapse rate is very small in such cases so long as the drug regiment is maintained, and yes, the harpy knew *exactly* what she was saying when she picked "acting out".

Just admit it, you said something incredibly crude and cruel as an off the cuff joke. While I do it a lot myself, I ain't putting myself on a moral pedestal in regards to other posters here. Really, getting upset at Pat about what he said about MO seems rather trite since you just did about the equivalent of a "minstrel show joke" using the mentally retarded.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 7, 2009 8:27 PM

@spike,
I'll admit the term retard is crude but that's about it. Stating the fact of their speech pattern is just a fact.

As per schizophrenia, my sister, mother, and grandmother have schizophrenia, so I suspect I know more than you about relapse rates.

Posted by: jz on April 8, 2009 12:17 AM

"Humourless ideologue". The debate about energy in the comments thread below this one: "partisan".

Chris White, the definitive ass-blocked egg-white-for-blood neo-puritan calling other people "humourless". Chris White the utterly predictable, utterly mechanical reflex leftist hack calling other people "ideologues" and "partisan".

That would be funny, except it's just boring. I forgot recently why I'd stopped reading you and responding to any of your endless prevaricating evasive bullshit. But now I remember.

Chris, I've been a bit hard on you lately, and I suspect I've hurt your feelings with my comments about your bizarre neo-Puritanical desire to see right-wing Americans suffer for the "historical sins" of the US. In particular, I don't think you'll ever forgive me for calling you out for that "payback" comment on immigration, an unfortunate tactical blunder that you blamed, correctly, on an "unguarded" moment, thereby revealing just what nastiness inside you'd been on guard against displaying all along.

Since that callout, I've actually been responding to you...and ignoring that familiar slowly growing tension headache that comes from trying to talk with someone who simply will not respond honestly or straightforwardly to anything anyone else says. But now the headache is back full force, and I'm remembering why I wrote you off.

You're pathologically dishonest. There's actually something wrong with you. There may even be a diagnostic category in the DSM for whatever it is you have, but I'm too tired to check.

The takeaway point is that someone with your pathological dishonesty won't ever get better, precisely because they lack the honesty to recognize that they even have a problem in the first place. Whatever it is you've got, it's not the kind of thing that people used to have.

So it's write-off time for you again. And may I remember never again to try to engage in discussion with someone who simply will not be honest. Life is too short to waste on compulsive irredeemable bullshitters like you.

Goodbye and good riddance to you.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 8, 2009 10:00 AM

"Given that he's been in office less than three months and took over at a time of multiple, over-lapping crises I'm still in 'wait & see' and 'benefit of the doubt' mode."

Obama is aiding and abetting the looting of public monies into private hands of Wall St. oligarchs while still keeping a tax evading criminal as the head of Treasury. He is continuing the worst policies of the Bush administration including making the defecit even larger that anyone thought was possible.

Let me know if:
a) I am wrong about Geithner being a tax cheat and still in Treasury.
b) I am wrong that Obama is continuing policies that hand money over to Wall Street.
c) If I am wrong he grew/is growing the defecit

And you're still going to "wait and see?" Obama is just a member of the "Duopoly," right? Why does he get a pass? Do you expect something different this time? Shit, I wish I knew where you lived. I'd rob your place on a regular basis and mug you 3 times a week as I know you sure won't bother with the cops or even try to stop me. As I carry the TV and the good silver out the door after knocking you over the head, you'll just "wait and see" what I'm really up too. Don't say a thing about it, as theft has been going on for thousands of years, so it is OK. As wanting Obama to fail, of course I do. How could anyone who is honest not want him to fail to hand even more money over to thieves on Wall St. or fail to keep criminals in his administration or to prevent our country from being even deeper in debt?

But earlier we got this:
"We're given the choice between the Good Cop party and the Bad Cop Party. Having chosen the Good Cop Party this time around we got a college constitutional law professor who often sounds professorial. Wow, I'm shocked, disappointed, and dismayed!"

Or this:
"ricpic – The thefts have been constant for decades. They dramatically accelerated under Reagan, moved along nicely under Bush 41, got a bit of a boost by Clinton, and went through the roof under the Bush/Cheney regime. Absent a very different way of electing our government I have every expectation that a McCain victory would have made little difference in the approach to the financial bailout. Obama just happens to be the one currently holding the bag."

So you're still going to "wait and see?" You need to stay consistent with your commentary. So you knew what was going down, but you still want to "wait and see?" Your argument boils down to that well, "everyone else is doing it so it is OK." Sounds like you have buyer's remorse too.

Posted by: Same Old on April 8, 2009 11:19 AM

Hmmm, I also suffer from "that familiar slowly growing tension headache that comes from trying to talk with someone who simply will not respond honestly or straightforwardly to anything anyone else says."

As one of the right's leaders once noted, 'We don't do nuance." Any efforts to nudge things out of the US vs. THEM mode here have proven increasingly futile. While I try to respond to the points others make it makes little differnce because, absent me saying something along the lines of "Wow, that insightful comment of yours just caused me to change my opinion on everything." any response I DO make is dismissed.

It's like that "prevaracating" adjective. Rather than adopting the simple declarative "I'm right, you're wtong." favored by so many here I don't assume absolutes and so get slammed as "prevaracating".

When I ask questions they are rarely answered, just check these two threads for examples. You'll find more than a couple still waiting for a response.

Now, I did refer to ST as the Shouting One and returned a joke for a joke with Patrick, but can you find pesonal attacks from me along the lines of these against me, again just pulled from these two threads?

amazingly dishonest person ... the definitive ass-blocked egg-white-for-blood neo-puritan ,,, the utterly predictable, utterly mechanical reflex leftist hack ... pathologically dishonest ... There's actually something wrong with you ,,, Chris Whiter-than-thou! ,,, A comment worthy of Alger Hiss!

They sort of define 'ad hominem attack" don't they?

Ans somehow I suspect that if I startd to spew personal insults like these at those I disagree with, I'd get bumped from the thread.

Posted by: Chris White on April 8, 2009 12:07 PM

Chris:

Heads they win, tails you lose. As you say, there is no adequate response other than capitulation to the endless rudeness, shouting and ad hominem.

I don't see why you keep it up. This gang ain't worth your breath. Leave them to shout into their own fetid echo chamber.

Posted by: frewer on April 8, 2009 1:43 PM

"When I ask questions they are rarely answered, just check these two threads for examples. You'll find more than a couple still waiting for a response."

Any time you want to respond to the 3 questions I listed, please do.

Posted by: Same Old on April 8, 2009 1:59 PM

Chris, I apologize. You're an evasive b*stard, God knows, but you don't have a personality disorder, at least as far as I can tell. I allowed my frustration with what I perceived as weaselling comments to lead me to an over the top insult. Sorry.

I withdraw the diagnosis (but reserve the tension headache--you can't take that from me!).

Respectfully,
Patrick

Posted by: PatrickH on April 8, 2009 3:22 PM

Chris,

Please stop engaging with this sad group.

The pathetic conservative 'movement' in this country (rapidly shrinking) can't STAND the fact that Obama is wildly popular both here in the U.S. and abroad. They know the score; the grown-ups have finally come home to clean up the mess, and they're sulking like the immature children they are. The best attack they have left is, "Well he's not really as good a speaker as all THAT..." Really? So sad...

Meanwhile even moderate conservatives are recognizing that this new administration is a professional group of dedicated men and women and they represent that best hope we have to drag this nation out of the muck the last administration steered us in to.

Same Old:
A. You're wrong about Geithner being a tax 'cheat'. That's a very loaded word which displays your bias and is misused here. A very small amount of tax ($35,000 over 3 years) was not paid at first due to "...the way his employer [the IMF] reported his wages which was not in accordance with tax law..." He has since paid all taxes owed in full. Stop listening to Hannity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geithner
B. Obama's economics team has correctly determined that certain institutions must be kept afloat or they take the whole ship down with them. Unfortunately that means "handing" money over to them, even though they don't 'deserve' it, with conditions of course. Several top (meaning: Nobel-Prize winning) economists are arguing that in fact not enough money is involved. But I suppose you knew that since you must be a Nobel-Prize winning economist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2
C. You are correct: Obama's economics team is growing the defecit, at least for now. I'm sure you must be used to that by now since your buddy Bush made that a national pastime. In fact, an expansionary fiscal policy is exactly what is required in a receding economy. Ask any economist. That means lower taxes (check) and increased government spending (check). But you knew that.

Posted by: Gabe on April 8, 2009 3:48 PM

Same Old – You are correct on all three points.

Still, I have every confidence that had McCain been elected points 2 and 3 would be virtually identical. Who McCain might have put in charge of Treasury would still have been an insider like Geithner. Whether or not he would have been a "tax cheat" or merely have excellent accountants who did a great job finding loopholes is up in the air. Had McCain looked the likelier to win I don't doubt the appropriate "campaign contributions" would have been made by Wall Street insiders. In fact, they did contribute to McCain and his circle as well, hedging their bets, as is their habit.

My inner anarchist would be quite happy to see Wall Street told to f*** off and go bankrupt already so we could build a new system from the ground up, but absent an uprising I don't expect that to happen.

It is also true that the Obama administration has put on the books military costs that the previous administration kept off the books, which makes the deficit look that much worse.

I took heat from friends on the left when I took a "wait and see" attitude about Bush. As his administration kicked into high gear after 9/11 distorting, if not undermining, the Constitution in an effort to remove as many checks and balances on the executive branch as possible, and as they began to shift attention from OBL to regime change in Iraq, I became an opponent. However, I took a "wait and see" attitude about the surge. I am relieved that it succeeded as well as it did. Taking a "wait and see" attitude has generally made more sense to me than either expecting miracles or screaming "off with his head" at the first questionable decision.

My attitude about Obama remains that he was the better of the pair we were given to choose from, either of whom I consider an improvement over the most immediate predecessor. Maybe some of his more adoring fans are disappointed that "Change" isn't happening soon enough, I didn't really expect "Change" so I'm not particularly disappointed ... yet.

Since the thread headed off in the direction of critiquing Obama's unscripted speaking style and his wife's fashion sense rather than the more substantive piece in Salon, I went along for the ride. Given the competition - John "My Friends" McCain and the misunderestimated George W. Bush – I'm willing to defend Obama as someone I can at least listen to without wincing.

Posted by: Chris White on April 8, 2009 7:46 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?