Blogcritics Comments on President Obama

Comment by Baronius on President Obama

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:52:23 EDT

Baritone, I'm not the only one who's noticed Obama's high self-image. It was the subject of Charles Krauthammer's column on Friday. I'm sure it would be a copyright violation to cut and paste the whole article, so I'll only steal one line, that Obama's only significant output has been a biography of his favorite subject, himself.

Comment by Baronius on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:00:52 EDT

Obnox - Good call on the "elitist" thing. That word triggers a lot of emotions on this site. All political factions think of themselves as the bright ones. In the pre Christian Coalition years, we Republicans were happy to look down on people. Our foreign policy was Machiavellian, unlike the stupid hippies. Our domestic policy was brilliant: we understood that lowering tax rates could increase tax revenue, even if we couldn't figure out how to explain it to the lowly masses. This was the party of Dave Nalle. But then we became Christian and humble. We stopped bragging and became palatable to the voter. We gave in to the natural human instinct to drive cars really fast in a circle. Of course, then our leaders in the House and Senate become aristocratic power snobs that even we don't want in office. Sigh. Politics was so much easier when *we* were the conceited party.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:38:04 EDT

Obnox, unless you personally asked every primary and caucus voter, or at least a reasonable sample of them, why they voted for Barack Obama (and remember that a significant minority didn't), your charge remains a generalization. I'm not saying that your argument doesn't have merit, just that it's not bulletproof as you claim. As for the 'left' now supporting Obama come hell or high water, well, he's the candidate-elect now. Every Democrat who sincerely wants a Democrat in the White House will be supporting him. That's the nature of the electoral process in this country. We've seen for ourselves that many Republican voters have serious misgivings about McCain too, but will be voting for him in November because a GOP president - any GOP president - is better to their minds than the alternative.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:57:34 EDT

Doc, As I was responding to B-Tone's sweeping generalizations about the right and their apparent lack of intellect, with a specific example of where the left has thrown out any measure of intellect in favor of emotion with regards to their choice for candidate, I find it difficult how you can suggest I am generalizing. Is supporting Obama by any means necessary by and large by the leftist elite regardless of views not specific enough? Certainly more specific than the charges thrown about by Btone regarding the right.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:17:23 EDT

Sweeping generalizations do not bulletproof logic make, Obnox.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:53:02 EDT

can no one refute my bullet proof logic here?

Comment by The Obnoxious American on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:55:08 EDT

Also, after 8 years of a slow progression of left wing programs, I think the GOP position will appear foreign to most people. Bliffle, All those rich Americans who live on "selective socialism" - I'm sure they didn't do anything to earn their money right? It's selected because they all have some back room deal with someone connected to Cheney? Someone slept in their aluminum foil hat. B-Tone, "It's almost exclusively a right wing American trait to suspect, and even despise those who display any eloquence or literacy and tab them "elitists," in favor of lesser minds of the GWB ilk who take pride in their ignorance and wear it like a badge of honor." I actually think quite the opposite is true. Think about this for a second. The left consistently tries to project itself as the smarter of the two parties. Yet in their infinite wisdom, they choose Barack Obama, a man with very little experience and a sole claim of judgement, and he's also pretty charismatic. But this is a man who has no clear platform, preaches a generalized message on change with not much else. A politician who obviously has spent so little time on the issues that he is just now starting to realize where his beliefs are (or he has no real beliefs). You can say I am just not familiar with his platforms, but his recent positions prove that no one is really familiar with his platform no matter how much we read his web site or watch his speeches. But the left doesn't care. They love this guy. He can approve of a fisa bill that gives telecom a pass (which I totally agree with) switch positions on Iraq, and support the 2nd ammendment, but this is a new kind of politics right? By contrast, the right looks at their candidates with a skeptical eye. They aren't easily wowed by an inspirational speech, glitzy friends and a cheesy fist bump. Up until recently, the right's whole beef with Obama has been his left wing platform, perhaps not so much anymore. You'd think that the left would at least consider the platform when choosing a guy for the job of president. Instead all they want is a generic vessel for them to place their own hopes and aspirations in. Navel gazing at it's worst, and on such a large scale. And it's the right that is anti-elitist? Perhaps the right is merely anti-bs.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on President Obama

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:53:47 EDT

Baronius, You are forgetting most people are lazy and will vote for the guy who already has the job and hasn't blown up the earth. Don't forget that the recent trend of 2 time presidents coincides with wide adoption of TV and lazy lifestyles. Moreover, I believe Obama's VP will get elected for a few reasons. Obama will have a legacy just like JFK. This recession is perfectly timed for the next president to come in and save the day, even if we all know that's not how the economic system works. The war in Iraq is perfectly timed for the next president to come in and save the day, even if we know that McCain's surge (and the sacrifice of our military) deserve credit for the major change in the situation there. Afghanistan? Pheh! We will take care of business there again just like we did a few years back. The idea that we have to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan is a false choice. Either way, this too will be sorted out by spring, just in time for the next president to take credit. In terms of Iran, the international community isn't serious about ensuring Iran does not have nukes. That means either Israel bombs Iran, which would scare people away from McCain, or Iran attains nukes, which would favor Obama with his fancy diplomacy. And now with Bush sending an envoy, which is not the same as "direct talks" between Ahmadinejad and Bush (or Obama), it still sends a message that Obama was somehow right. With all of this going in the right direction for Obama, and with McCain seemingly sidelined by his campaign, Obama will attain an amazing legacy, like it or not. Obama will be the next JFK. After 8 years of bliss (right around the time for the NEXT recession to rear it's ugly head) people will make the safe choice and put Obama's heir apparent in the Oval Office. I can't tell the future and I could be wrong about this, but it's really not so far fetched.

Comment by STM on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:19:01 EDT

Andy, Schapelle Corby, a hairdresser from the Gold Coast. She got busted with a big whack of pot in her boogie board bag at Denpasar airport, and claimed she never put it there and didn't know how it came to be there. The country is split about 50-50 as to whether she's guilty or innocent, but the bottom line is, that doesn't mean diddly because the average Australian had no input into the trial in Indonesia. What Aussies are angry about is that there is an element of doubt, and had she gone to trial in Australia, it's quite likely that her guilt wouldn't have been established beyond reasonable doubt (aren't we lucky that we live in countries with this legal system). There is also the small matter of the time the Indonesians gave her: 20 years in stinking Kerobokan Jail for a bag of grass that might not have been hers. Had she been busted here, tried and found guilty, she might have got five years' maximum and been out in two, especially if she'd been held in custody during the trial as they take into account time served. Aussie jails are also quite humane places (especially compared to US jails if we're comparing western type incarceration), where the emphasis is on care in custody and rehabilitation, because the system considers that deprivation of liberty is the whole of the punishment, and that beyond that people have no need to be further punished unless of course they play up. Of course, being a former convict colony might have something to do with that attitude. And compared to Bali, they're like the Sheraton, so it's a bizarre tale all round. The family ARE a bit "unusual" though, which is the best way to put it. And Doc, you'd walk in down here with your background in counselling/social work. They are desperate for people like you. Don't know why ... this place seems to be run by social workers sometimes :)

Comment by Baronius on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:03:29 EDT

Bar, there may be some Republicans like that, but that's not where I'm coming from. I like brains. I've never had them personally, but I've seen other people use them and they look like fun. But I don't see any signs that Obama is clever or curious. His positions are pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a Democrat who wasn't awfully intellectual. (No offense to Dems - there is a set of positions that the casual, even dim Republican would likely fall into.) OK, there's one exception that I can think of. Some of his statements about the recent Supreme Court decisions indicate independent thought.

Comment by Baritone on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:53:49 EDT

Boy, Bar, you've sure got that Obama guy figured out. It's amazing that you have such intimate knowledge of the man, or are you just prescient? It's almost exclusively a right wing American trait to suspect, and even despise those who display any eloquence or literacy and tab them "elitists," in favor of lesser minds of the GWB ilk who take pride in their ignorance and wear it like a badge of honor. That Obama has obvious eloquence and literacy, he is, without any consideration of his race, considered to be an elitist and presumed consequently to have no balls. Even Obnox does not look upon Obama quite as dimly as you do. B-tone

Comment by Baronius on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:35:46 EDT

I do have a very low opinion of Obama. We'll see if I'm underestimating him. He'd never joke about bombing Iran. He'll be against military action six months before he orders it. But he'll paint himself into a corner and realize it too late. He's also petulant enough that he'll find himself wanting to go to war, because Iran or the international community isn't respecting him enough. (If you think crazy invading America isn't respected, wait till you see the international reaction to wussy retreating America.)

Comment by bliffle on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:35:39 EDT

Wake up Steel. We already have socialism - socialism for the rich and powerful. It's only the consumers and workers who have only token socialism, who must endure the slings and arrows of brass-knuckles capitalism. Bear Stearns starts to go belly-up as a result of the predatory mistakes of it's overpaid execs and the Bush administration snaps to attention and coppers a $30billion bailout. FNMA starts to take on water as a result of the machinations of it's overpaid execs and once again the Bush administration snaps to attention. But if 2 million american homeowners go bankrupt and lose their houses No Mercy For Them! Hard-nosed make-or-break capitalism for the least powerful people in the country. A severe lecture about irresponsibility and risk taking when they fail. Corporate welfare for the most powerful - who happen to be the biggest campaign contributors to Bush/Cheney. We have socialism already: selective socialism.

Comment by Baritone on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:15:53 EDT

Baron, You underestimate Obama and his ability to think for himself. He will effectively shut out the crazies. I don't see him pandering to please every Tom, Dick, and Hillary when it comes to Iran or anything for that matter. Obama is no more (nor less) guilty of that than any politician. You presume far too little of Obama. Barack is not the one singing "Bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran" or making similar stupid remarks that reveal McCain's basic lack of depth. A public figure seeking the highest office in the land should not be saying such things, even in jest. It borders on a gutteral level of human disregard. And you're right. McCain doesn't really want to BE president. He just wants to win it. And perhaps he likes the IDEA of it. It's rather like teenage girls who pine for having babies, thinking how great it will be to cuddle some helpless little doll like creature without a thought to the fact that that little "doll" will eat and cry and poop and get sick, and will quickly be wreaking havoc on her life. B-tone

Comment by Steel on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:13:39 EDT

An excellent piece. I think the actual threat to America and the move toward a more socialist system will come from a Democrat controlled Congress moreso than a president Obama. The problem is that those who believe at this moment in time this will be a good thing won't recognize it's not a good thing to trend toward more socialism until it is too late. That realization will occur when the rich can't be soaked for any more and the taxes of everyone begin to rocket skyward.

Comment by Baronius on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:32:05 EDT

Yeah, Bicho, it's a tough move. Not many VP's become president, except the unfortunate way. I don't know why we assume that a president will make it eight years, much less extend his influence two terms beyond his presidency. I can't imagine a President McCain running for a second term. He doesn't want to be President; he just wants to be elected President. He wants to get the job that Bush "stole" from him. A President Obama would still be youthful during a second term, but his possible VP's? Clinton, Richardson, and Webb would all be bumping up against 70 by the end of a second Obama term.

Comment by El Bicho on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:25:40 EDT

Eisenhower-Nixon, but I think you mean consecutively, so no.

Comment by Baronius on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:04:38 EDT

Obnox - I think you missed one very important issue, relations with Iran. Obama is far more likely to get the US into a war (or at least some regionalized conflict) than McCain. McCain will probably keep our mideast policy the same. He'll shut down Guantanamo and gradually bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda will keep losing. McCain will avoid war with Iran. Obama is more likely to have an erratic foreign policy. He'll be torn by his advisors: moveon peaceniks, Clinton-era interventionists, establishment internationalists, the cautious and the radical. He'll be so preoccupied with not erring that he'll overreact to something. Consistent foreign policy is the best thing; second-best is absolutely psychotic foreign policy that scares your neighbors. The most dangerous foreign policy is inconsistent. Also, Obnox, I don't see Obama or McCain lasting more than one term. We've gone through a recent stretch of two-termers, but that's uncommon. Certainly, with the country so evenly divided, there's no reason to assume that this election will set the tone for 16 years. (Has there ever been a two-termer whose VP went on to be a two-term president?)

Comment by Dr Dreadful on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:55:30 EDT

Or The Schwartz.

Comment by Baritone on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:31:42 EDT

One should remember that there are those who neither believe in or pine for any higher power, other than, of course, the Federation of Planets. B-tone

Comment by Ruvy on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:06:58 EDT

I know I'm late to the party, but other things have been going on that do not have to do with this magazine. Anyway, you've put out a workmanlike article with which I have one quibble. It runs like this: you talk about a lot of us wanting to believe in a higher power, and then observe or lament that the president is not a god. That Higher Power is not some dipshit politician, but G-d Himself. If you really understood the Jewish heritage you are heir to, you would understand that with crystal clarity. As for your prognostications, I think Obama will win in the vote, both the popular vote and the electoral one. Going beyond that with the American election, I will not do. Too much is in the air at the moment. Love and kisses from the mountains of Samaria, Ruvy

Comment by Dr Dreadful on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:44:44 EDT

A "brief" standing ovation, according to USA Today, in contrast to "the thunderous enthusiasm that had greeted Obama". I didn't see the speech, but I gather that his reception was warm and polite and that his audience was, by and large, appreciative that he'd taken the time and trouble to stop by and share his plans with them. But it doesn't seem as though he'll be changing many hearts and minds in that demographic. And yes, SCOTUS is split down the middle at the moment. Four justices will pretty much always go one way, and four will go the other. They seem happy enough to do that and subsequently be rude to each other in their written opinions. I believe Kennedy has been the swing vote in all the recent landmark decisions. Stevens and Ginsburg - both liberals - are the oldest justices and probably the most likely to retire or pop their clogs in the immediate future. Obama would appoint liberals to replace them, McCain would plump for conservatives. So the overall balance of power probably won't be changing in favor of the left any time soon.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:16:35 EDT

Are you really expecting most of the right-wingers on the Court to croak or retire over the next few years, Obnox? Doc, Given the last few important supreme court decisions, decided by 1 vote each, it only takes one to croak my friend. Not that this is a huge concern of mine personally. The Keller decision should make any revisit of the 2nd ammendment moot as it should now fall into the "settled" law category. I couldn't care less about Gay marriage and I'm not so concerned about abortion rights. But that's just me. The experience does show just how important these elections are in terms of our rights. I've said this before, but it is interesting how the GOP supports gun rights, but is against the right to abort or marry if you are gay. A bit of an inconsistency of the main platform, but I suppose that is the price you pay to own the morals vote. Thing is I don't think the morals vote is worth a damn in 2008. Another point, I thought McCain's speech in front of the NAACP yesterday was nothing short of brilliant. Who would have thought that McCain would garner a standing ovation at the NAACP with Obama as his opponent. Perhaps this is a result of McCain's staff changes, and if so it is a welcome change.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:08:29 EDT

BTW, I saw a COPS episode on cable the other night and it was in Fresno. It looked like a big bush town, Doc, with dirt roads and what have you on the outskirts. So is it a proper small city Doc, or was I right - a big country town? It has elements of both, Stan. 'Downtown' looks like a typical American small city and during the day it bustles and functions like one. At night, it empties completely and no-one but bums and baseball fans (there's a spanking new stadium which it was hoped would revitalize the CBD) are to be found there. Urban sprawl has expanded Fresno to half the size of Greater London, although with far fewer people - hence the 'bush' appearance in some parts of the city. That's steadily changing as the vacant tracts get homes, offices and strip malls built on them - those Cops episodes were I think filmed several years ago. That said, from downtown you can actually get into the countryside very quickly. The town grew up alongside the Union Pacific railroad - joined later by Highway 99, which runs parallel - and expanded to the north and east. To the south of the train tracks, it's still all fields. Why is she so keen to stay in the US? Family? I still reckon you guys need to get on a plane and head on down to the sun-kissed paradise-by-the-sea. Americans are allowed to become citizens now as well. We're reckoning on getting out of Fresno ASAP, Stan. Only two things are keeping us here right now: the missus needs to stay at her current job for another year so she can get vested and take her employer's retirement contributions with her when she leaves; and we need to get our condo into a fit state to be rented out. Family's not a big issue as she and her parents squabble constantly, one sister has already moved away and the other wants to. I did have a look at the Australian immigration website and was quite staggered at the list of trades and occupations which the country is supposedly desirous of. I think it would have been easier to make a list of the professions Australia doesn't need...

Comment by Baritone on President Obama

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:44:05 EDT

Of course each president afforded the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices during their terms in office attempt to choose from among those believed to be politically aligned with that president. Generally, at least over the last several years - at least until up to the GWB appointees - that hasn't necessarily worked out as expected. Often SC judges have in fact proven to be quite independent in their respective decisions, often much to the chagrin of the president who nominated them. Currently, the court has a decided conservative balance. There are 2 justices who are like 130 years old or so, who will likely retire during the next presidential term, although there are no guarantees. There must be something about being a SC judge which seems to elongate their working lives. I suppose the necessity of keeping the cranial juices flowing have something to do with it. Few SC judges bite the dust early. I just hope the two oldsters on the court manage to hold on for the remainder of the year. If Obama wins the WH, then it will be his fortune to choose their replacements. Should McCain get the nod, his appointees would more than likely mirror Bush's. Perish the thought! B-tone